Evolution is a DIRTY LIE (129)

1 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-05-16 15:43 ID:fM7LLXTR

http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta07/ERES1580.htm

> 1. The aim of this report is not to question or to fight a belief – the right to freedom of belief does not permit that. The aim is to warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science. It is necessary to separate belief from science. It is not a matter of antagonism. Science and belief must be able to coexist. It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science.

Stopped reading there.

There is NO evidence of evolution. It is a belief. Objective science doesn't support evolution no matter how many frauds and hoaxes are fabricated to support evolution. The truth always trickles out.

Life doesn't just happen. That alone totally defies the Laws of Science.

The Judeo Christian G-D, made it happen. G-d is the Author of all science. It is no coincidence that leading evolutionists are atheists. THAT is by design. These atheistic evolutionists do not find G-d acceptable in their premises. Their premise is that there is NO G-D.

Professing to be wise they have become fools .... intolerent fools.

80 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-03 15:03 ID:qe/nRNAK

Earthbound eh..?

So, is Giygas the alien gene manipulator?

81 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-04 00:57 ID:Heaven

>>80

No. He doesn't even exist!!!

82 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-04 15:12 ID:Heaven

>No. He doesn't even exist!!!

Science can't disprove my faith in Giygas.

83 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-04 19:14 ID:Heaven

disbelieving in Giygas only makes him stronger you know.

84 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-10 03:44 ID:Cam+JryK

Who's Giygas?

85 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-11 18:41 ID:8SQg1kDe

universal cosmic destroyer.

made a cameo appearance as the final boss in Earthbound.

86 Name: Prof Sai : 2008-09-14 19:11 ID:BIUMZAO/

Aliens don't make any difference as far as evolution goes. If we were created by aliens then the aliens would have to have evolved naturally. So you are back to exactly the same question: How did the first life evolve?

There is nothing in the fossil record that "needs" aliens. Good natural explanations for things like eyes and flight are easy to find if you are willing to look, and put in the effort of understanding.

87 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-15 02:22 ID:j9/FZ79V

We "need" aliens for the fossil record because it's a mess. Who in his right mind designed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark_teeth for the sharks?

88 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-15 17:25 ID:8SQg1kDe

Hi, I'm >>87 and I sure do love unqualified statements.

89 Name: Crysis Warhead Torrent : 2008-09-16 19:20 ID:Heaven

Oh is this still going on? Might as well use this thread to post hot news topics in order to bring people in via google.

Especially with morgellons and brianna denison, the important thing to remember, OP, is that glass steagall repeal will always be by your side. Mm, a nice plate of obama waffles sure does pick me up in the morning.

gq magazine might be DQN, prurigo nodularis might be internet-addicts.

Is it bad that I have no idea what these words from http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends mean?

hehe, almost forgot my captcha code.

heh.

90 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-17 15:25 ID:Heaven

you forgot lol, rofl, haxxorz, warez, boobs, teen, voyeur, gamez, paris hilton, britney spears, cheese...

91 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-26 03:16 ID:YHCMk2WS

Science is a faith like any other. It's basically what would occur if the practioners of Jewish Kaballah extended the scope of their investigations to include everything and removed the aspect of the Tanahk.

92 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-26 10:20 ID:Heaven

>Science is a faith like any other. It's basically what would occur if the practioners of Jewish Kaballah extended the scope of their investigations to include everything and removed the aspect of the Tanahk.

I'm studying the molecular biology of cancer at the minute and it's actually less than 50% kabbalistic mysticism (we don't even look at the biology of daemonic possesion until the second semester).

93 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-10-03 16:52 ID:6UAu7ehi

Science could be considered a 'faith' of sorts, as we cannot hope to prove every little fact of science to every individual - some facts and equations we just have to take as true to keep forging ahead.

Science, however, encourages (and forces) introspection, and often changes its 'beliefs' to better match the world. True religions do not do this.

Also, the fact that what science discovers actually corresponds to what is measured much of the time, as well as the fact that science can predict events and important happenings, makes it the winner in my book.

94 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-10-08 14:39 ID:Heaven

>>93
Accountancy is my faith. Pay your bills on time.

95 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-10-31 20:41 ID:1rVYK1K2

If it weren't for God man would still be swinging from the trees and throwing feces at each other!

96 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-11-02 12:19 ID:6eDehJsw

>>95

Could argue the same point for lions and other large cats. Try again. >:3

97 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-11-04 01:57 ID:csaoQpx+

>>1

You do know that, um...
evolution is pretty much proven...
...right?

I mean, there IS a crap ton of evidence that was discovered prior to the advent of modern genetics, that just happens to fit perfectly with it? Like, evolution has been observed multiple times?

You do also know that there's no reason to assume that a fairy tale intelligence made anything happen, right? Like, you could assume that natural laws set everything in place and that the point of termination is there... you know this, right?

And I'm sure you realize that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. That's abiogenesis.

But you knew all that, right?
......right??

You are terrified of doubting what you've been indoctrinated to believe. You read the intro to an article which made it very clear that you shouldn't be offended or feel attacked AND YOU MISSED THE ENTIRE EFFING POINT right off the bat.

You've been taught to stick your fingers in your ears and go LA LA LA FAIRY TALE.

As my captcha says, FOTT.

98 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-11-10 07:23 ID:Heaven

Lies are not inherently dirty, as they have no method of picking up or transmitting bacteria or other harmful microflora.

99 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2009-12-28 17:33 ID:Heaven

I can't even be bothered to read the replies except to say that I really hope that 1-san is trolling.

100 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2010-02-19 09:07 ID:d1LZUMaM

>>1 Actually life does just happen. They proved it at Cornell.

101 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2010-02-20 02:42 ID:Heaven

102 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2010-03-01 21:09 ID:dqhRpI4u

>102 replies

LOLOLOLOLOL

103 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-06-10 15:22 ID:/g4yRNCU

>>Isn't God itself too complicated to just happen?

God doesn't happen, He IS.

I have changed my opinion from flaming atheist to believer and seeker and then to christian. All of this based on evidence I had the luxury of seeing.

>>97

Evolution needs intermediate fossiles to be proven, and there is no such thing, there are however specialists stating that such a thing is a fairytale, an impossible one.

104 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-06-11 16:46 ID:+vSyzkhw

I immediately noticed that OP post makes a justified accusation of how naturalism is a faith that passes itself off as science.

Cue all the skepticism being directed only at creationism.

Naturalism is a belief supported by faith.

So often they use an argument that starts with how there's no way to objectively test the existence of God, and rightly charge that assuming god must exist is a belief rooted in faith.

They however seem blind to the fact that the untestability means faith is required for EITHER assumption. The end result is that they basically take it that because their beliefs don't include the supernatural, places of worship, sacraments, or other visibly religious practices, that their own beliefs are unquestionable science and not a faith resting on their personal biases.

In other words, naturalists are blind to their own bias.

Now some terminology confusion. A lot of people use "evolution" where they would more appropriately use "naturalism." The key reason for this is that evolution is the primary process being extrapolated, in a form of static analysis that goes "creatures are changing, so this process must go backwards all the way explaining all diverse life."

105 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-06-15 20:36 ID:C6O62q8s

Remarkable how many folk claim to be God's spokesmen by stating on His behalf and in His name that He has not, does not and will not use evolution as His means of creation.

106 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-06-22 00:55 ID:KgAm4HUG

107 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-06-23 04:58 ID:HV4xgzTt

>>106
Every citation on that page is from a book whose goal is to exposure fraudulent archaeology. I wonder if I read any of these supposedly edifying tomes, they'd cite that website in return.

108 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-06-28 20:20 ID:8Xr4QcEx

We are so used to thinking serial, we forget that life is a massively parallel system.

109 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-07-06 18:00 ID:tAfqcN2h

>>104
yes, but doesn't naturalism, if I may use that word in the sense that I think you are using it, require less faith and fewer, smaller ontologically untenable assumptions?

Occam's Razor is relevant here. If we have, say, three models of the universe,

1) assumes the existence of two undetectable and untestable supernatural gods
2) assumes the existence of one undetectable and untestable supernatural gods
3) does not require us to assume the existence of supernatural beings in order to have a usable and useful model of the world around us

which one do you think is an appropriate place to start a scientific investigation?

110 Name: just passerby : 2012-07-19 12:29 ID:howOJJQz

Evolution doesn't exist. It's a fairy tale for people. People believe, that the can develop, move on, that they are not at an impasse. But people are the same as at the beginning of their existence. They began to dress differently and live in other dwellings, established new laws and built a new city. But everything is new - it is well forgotten old. They are a little altered his life, but not moved forward even a step. People were deadlocked in their evolution long ago.
P.s. probably i sound like a fool, because i read just a title and the first line's of post and already write an answer. But i just wanted to show my view at the existence of evolution.

111 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-07-24 16:24 ID:XPfPApjZ

Were there no evolution, all males would look the same within a species, as would all females. And DDT would have killed off every mosquito in SE-Asia already.

112 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-07-25 16:21 ID:3k4jFctP

>>111
Excuse me the old testament says angels came down and did the dirty with humans, so clearly the genetic variation came from them.

I bet they fucked the mosquitoes too. They were like Zeus and just took whatever form got them some beastly sex.

113 Post deleted.

114 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-09-20 20:47 ID:VWwWcDY8

If I return all the way up to the OP, the claim here is that there is no evidence for evolution. Well, that's one big fat lie.

There's a huge lot of evidence that evolution exists and works, literally thousands of examples and experiment results. If I should name just one of all, there's nylon-eating bacteria. Nylon is a completely artificial material, no such material has ever existed on Earth before it was created by humans and when it was created, there was no organism on Earth that could digest it. But in a few years, some bacteria surprisingly started being able to digest nylon. If god created life at the beginning and there was no evolution, the bacteria couldn't have evolved to digest nylon.

The question whether the life has evolved from common ancestors or whether it was created by some kind of god is of course completely different question. Nobody can return back in time to check that, so what we're left with is evidence in form of paleontological finds, and our beliefs. In short, we can trust science, or we can trust religion.

In my opinion, anybody is free to believe all life and humanity was created by their preferred kind of god any time they consider suitable pretty much the same as anybody is free to believe there is an angel talking to them from their cellphone. The basis of both is about the same.

Personally I prefer believing the smart people who invented cellphones that it's all caused by invisible waves of energy going through me and everything around, and similar smart people who dig in the ground searching for prehistoric fossils and putting our history together from them. But that's of course just my personal preference.

115 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-09-22 00:43 ID:Heaven

>>114
How do you know the bacteria weren't already capable of digesting it before nylon was invented?

116 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-10-09 14:26 ID:DpX1MdXz

If matter, energy,time and pancakes were eternal, that means an eternal ammount of time would need to pass before us, so they can't be eternal.

If they aren't eternal they must come from another source, and I'm out of sources if I don't place God there.

That plus: Where did the first humans get the notion that their morals should agree with the commandments so that we have them today? The fact that you blush doesn't make those morals seem like something taught in the first place.

Let's go from this demonstration of the existence of God to the point of evolution, now. If there is somebody skilled to do it, of course.

117 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-10-15 05:22 ID:Heaven

> If matter, energy,time and pancakes were eternal, that means an eternal ammount of time would need to pass before us, so they can't be eternal.

Why not?

> If they aren't eternal they must come from another source, and I'm out of sources if I don't place God there.

Try the "circle of wind" as described in Theravada Buddhist cosmology. There's just as much basis for it as there is for God, i.e. none.

> Where did the first humans get the notion that their morals should agree with the commandments so that we have them today?

You mean Judeo-Christian commandments like "thou shalt have no other gods before me?" The morals of Chinese, Japanese and Indian people certainly agree with that one.

> Let's go from this demonstration of the existence of God to the point of evolution, now. If there is somebody skilled to do it, of course.

I've always thought that people who believe in this 'God', but think He wasn't clever enough to have designed evolution and that everything He supposedly told people from 6000 years ago must have been the literal truth (rather than, say, metaphor for concepts they couldn't possibly have understood) must have a pretty low opinion of the guy's intellect.

118 Post deleted.

119 Post deleted.

120 Post deleted.

121 Post deleted.

122 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2015-09-02 18:13 ID:nSZLHB+a

Would you have sex with something that evolved from an ape?

123 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2015-09-06 20:10 ID:Heaven

>>122
I'm asexual, so no, I wouldn't have sex with anything.

124 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2015-09-10 17:57 ID:segyI+0X

>>123
Too bad. It's interested in you anyway.

125 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2016-07-18 03:13 ID:5TNG0Gm5

In the Old Testament, there are many references made to God leading the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt with a "strong hand and outstretched arm." There, reference to God's hand is clearly metaphorical, as he uses the plagues to free the Israelites, not a giant hand. God is a transcendent being, and thus does not have hands in the human sense. I think that the same is true of where it says in Genesis 2 that God formed man from dust he had gathered; God acts through the natural processes He created to carry out his will, as befits a being of His stature. However, the Bible occasionally using figures of speech should not be taken to detract from its spiritual truth.

126 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2016-07-23 04:50 ID:UuH/njL9

>>1
If life spontaneously appearing defies the "Laws of Science", as you call them, what property of the entity you refer to as "G-d" allows it to create life, in violation of the "Laws of Science"? If this entity can circumvent the "Laws of Science", can they really be said to be laws? And if as you say this entity is responsible for the creation of life, does that not imply that the "G-d" entity is not itself alive?

127 Post deleted.

128 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2016-11-02 16:56 ID:usdMZ3Fw

The Prophet Mohammad (pieces of shit be upon him)

129 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2017-08-19 18:29 ID:DHAQ3Sv+

I made a LINE stamp.
https://line.me/S/sticker/1534511
Please use it if you like i

Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...
Verification: