Darwin, Another flatulent atheist god bites the dust!

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Kokomojojo, May 16, 2020.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,707
    Likes Received:
    935
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you are confusing the only explanation you accept with only explanation, evolution is not the only explanation
     
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,707
    Likes Received:
    935
    Trophy Points:
    113
    strawman distraction and spun to the point of a lie.
    several thousand Phds dissenting darwins evolution is not tiny.
    they debunked darwin
    A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
    Dissent means they disagree. I know thats a tough one, but....
    Ah thats why all the discoveries that debunk Darwin are suppressed in school.
    strawman distraction this is not about ID, nice off topic spin though
    strawman distraction and spun to the point of a lie.
    several thousand Phds dissenting darwins evolution is not tiny, except for those premeditatedly misrepresenting the evidence.
    strawman distraction dont give a ****
    strawman distraction dont give a ****
    strawman distraction dont give a ****
    strawman distraction dont give a ****
    atheists worship themselves, some are women.
     
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,707
    Likes Received:
    935
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ron Hatch the engineer that actually designed the GPS system could not get it to work properly using einee weenees religion, I posted all the proofs why do you persist telling that bullshit story?
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2020
  4. (original)late

    (original)late Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    5,197
    Likes Received:
    2,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That doesn't make sense.

    Which is pretty much par for this thread.
     
    yardmeat and Cosmo like this.
  5. (original)late

    (original)late Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    5,197
    Likes Received:
    2,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not really.

    You keep saying Darwin, that makes no sense.

    You are talking about scientists. First, you don't throw out a dominant theory until you can replace it, and we're not there yet. Second, one of the standards scientists use is productivity, and evolution is one of the most productive theories in the history of science. Third, evolution has a number of parts, 5 if I remember right. Not all of it is being fought over. Fourth, when we do come up with something better, religion won't be part of it. Sorry, that's the way it is.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  6. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,351
    Likes Received:
    1,497
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It appears he can't tell the difference between dissent and debunk.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2020
  7. Etbauer

    Etbauer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    4,683
    Likes Received:
    867
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [​IMG]
     
    bigfella, Cosmo and WillReadmore like this.
  8. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,707
    Likes Received:
    935
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The base foundation is bunk, you cant throw it out since its a matter of history, you simply ignore it as bunk. Yes minor deviation is valid, however no one needed Darwin to tell us that, and certainly the atheist necessity to make it a religion taught in schools ispo facto is over the top mass programming.
     
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,707
    Likes Received:
    935
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [​IMG]
     
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    37,691
    Likes Received:
    9,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's weird to me that ANYONE would think they are in a position to use namecalling as a method of detracting from Einstein's progress that has stood now for more than 100 years.

    And, you should lookk into this a little further.

    Ron Hatch fully recognizes that Newton is not sufficient. And, he recognizes what Einstein predicted concerning clocks running at different speeds depending on mass and velocity. And, GPS includes clock corrections that are what Einstein's theory states to be necessary.

    It's just that Hatch promotes an different physics than that of the rest of the world - he wants to go back to "ether" threory.

    I don't see any reason to give Hatch credit for effects which Einstein predicted - even providing the equations. And, there is NO possibility that Hatch's abject failure at promoting his alternate physics is based in anything but physics.

    Refusing to accept superior fundamentals is not something that physicists can afford to do.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    37,691
    Likes Received:
    9,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As I pointed out, there are fundamental reasons that a scientist would agree with the statement that don't have to do with honets concern that evolution theory isn't valid.

    That list includes peopole from around the world (a large body of people who might sign), those who are not scientists (such as engineers), those who don't work in any field of biology. AND, it is without any investigation of what motivated their signataure - such as whether or not their reason was religiously based rather than based in biological science, or whether they were simply supporting the fundamental that all scientists MUST remain skeptical as a requirement of progress in science.

    In fact, it has at least one individual from "alternative medicine"!!
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  12. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,351
    Likes Received:
    1,497
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Science does not deal with supernatural explanations because they are not scientifically testable.
     
  13. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,707
    Likes Received:
    935
    Trophy Points:
    113
    they dissent, that means disagree, if its important to you or the point being made then you should email every one of them to prove that is the case, otherwise no one has any reason to believe you, just because you pick a couple people out of 10's of thousands of Phd's that signed the DISSENT document.
    Well if one is required to be in the specific field working on evolution projects then you just disqualified yourself to even comment.
    You have nothing valid to tell us at this point.
    DISSENT, that means disagreement with darwing will, that is what motivated them, I know tough call.
    They are Phd,s not priests.
    composition fallacy.
    which doesnt mean they are not capable of understanding the evidence presented before them. such arrogance
    einee weenie? Hes the g-d of metaphysics.
    No will you should readmore.
    He used newton to correct einee weene.
    Before ron hatch flushed einee and his use of aether and newton, the best location resolutions were 10-15 feet.

    After rons use of newton and aether drift now location is so accurate you can the locations to write your name on a piece of paper.

    As the toilet flushes LOL
    He used Lorentz, it was not the weenees idea
    Newton is not alternate physics theory, WTF :confused:
    Yes rons work is superior to einees because his worked, einees did not
     
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,707
    Likes Received:
    935
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again, I repeat, I am not plugging for ANY other theory, only pointing out the atheist god is a false god.
     
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    37,691
    Likes Received:
    9,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    False.

    The statement they signed says NOTHING about dissent.

    It DOES say somethig about skepticism - which is a fundamental part of science.

    I've pointed this out several times now.

    I quoted one of the signatories as stating exactly that, with her statement on the site that includes your list.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,707
    Likes Received:
    935
    Trophy Points:
    113
    one to prove tens of thousands, another composition fallacy, which leads to total misrepresentation.
    skeptical means doubt, which contradicts agreement

    you couldnt be on thinner ice LOL
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2020
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,707
    Likes Received:
    935
    Trophy Points:
    113
    its exactly the fraudulent approach you take that lights peoples fire.
    Evolution
    Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

    Discovery Institute first published its Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list in 2001 to challenge false statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS’s “Evolution” series. At the time it was claimed that “virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.”
    Dr. John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “Darwinist efforts to use the courts, the media and academic tenure committees to suppress dissent and stifle discussion are in fact fueling even more dissent and inspiring more scientists to ask to be added to the list.”

    Other prominent signatories include U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and a researcher at the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg; Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum –the oldest still published biology journal in the world — Giuseppe Sermonti; and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/

    your friends?
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2020
  18. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,351
    Likes Received:
    1,497
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity.
     
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,707
    Likes Received:
    935
    Trophy Points:
    113
    atheists will tell you that Christains are good at accepting things not true, but then atheists run that race neck to neck.


    Ancient DNA
    Smithsonian’s first big science breakthrough is the discovery of ancient DNA.

    (1) the hypothesis that modern humans are descended from decidedly non-human, subhuman, or otherwise primitive species, and (2) the claim that these newly revealed “species of early humans” were substantially different from us.

    The second big discovery of the last decade was Homo naledi, which is also exciting because it represents a humungous cache of hominid fossils that adds a lot to our knowledge of the fossil record. Initially, news reports called Homo naledi a “human ancestor.” However in 2017 it was found that this species is only a few hundred thousand years old — 10 times too young to be considered as one of our evolutionary ancestors.
    This was a major bust for proponents of human evolution, as we reported here. OOOPSIE! :roflol:

    https://evolutionnews.org/2020/04/a-disappointing-decade-for-the-study-of-human-evolution/
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2020
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    37,691
    Likes Received:
    9,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please identify one other scientific explanation of phenomena covered by the theory of evolution.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  21. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,707
    Likes Received:
    935
    Trophy Points:
    113
    wow did you ever **** that one up!
     
  22. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    37,691
    Likes Received:
    9,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey - I laid it on the line!

    Go for it!
     
  23. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    6,806
    Likes Received:
    4,510
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The atheist God can’t be a false God, by simple inference in logic.
     
    Cosmo and Ronald Hillman like this.
  24. Ronald Hillman

    Ronald Hillman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2020
    Messages:
    1,210
    Likes Received:
    1,026
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And as I have pointed out millions more theists accept evolution than atheists, still the op continues his rant against atheists, would be interested in knowing what his alternative theory is since he is an agnostic so cannot claim ID or creationism!
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  25. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,707
    Likes Received:
    935
    Trophy Points:
    113
    well you didnt make any sense if that makes you happier.
     

Share This Page