Great Atheist Bomb Drops!

[Loki]

This also poses a more relevant question: why would an omnipotent being create creatures with worthless traits for no apparent reason?

Worthless according to who, you? You don't know squat and things have purposes that you will never know about. That doesn't mean it has no purpose, only that you don't know what it is.

[JosephK]

You have much to learn my friend...what you said here is incredibly ignorant and totally false.

But you're both right. Science, especially nowadays, is as much a Faith as almost any religion. The "facts" are as inaccessible to the average person as are any mystical phenomena. The difference is who you trust as authoritative.

[Aldaris]

There is no way the scientific establishment would applaud you with such a reward for destroying their fallacies!

This is what would happen if anyone sent a pdf effectively disproving evolution. The editors would just want to ravage that and call it a day as quickly as possible at first, since they've seen such attempts many times before and nobody managed to do so. Then they would realize they can't really do that. And as the participants on the project that turned the entire paradigm upside down, they would each get a grant such that they can buy a hotel in Magaluf and a tenure at whatever university they'd choose. Science isn't about maintaining the established old rules, but about breaking them when it's possible.

[Ajeje Brazorf]

You have much to learn my friend...what you said here is incredibly ignorant and totally false.

This thread in a nutshell

[JosephK]

Zero evidence you say? Go claim your Nobel Price then. The whole biology is based on that very fact and you receive no less if you claim otherwise and can hold your beliefs before the editors.

Not only we observed speciation in nature, but we did that in a lab aswell. And they are not biased. They will pick on the every point you say they would think isn't correct. Since they have more money by doing so. If your theory is going to be proven, congrats, not one managed to do so in a few hundred years.



I am an atheist. We would nevertheless agree on some things and disagree on the other ones. I have no agenda in this regard. There cannot be. If you pursue truth and not dogmas.

But that's the problem: the average person who accepts evolution as the driving force of life (vs. God) is basing his belief on as much faith--without proof--as a religious person. We evolutionary biologists and anthropologists may, personally, have "evidence", but the typical person does not, and simply believes it.

[Wanderer]

But that's the problem: the average person who accepts evolution as the driving force of life (vs. God) is basing his belief on as much faith--without proof--as a religious person. We evolutionary biologists and anthropologists may, personally, have "evidence", but the typical person does not, and simply believes it.

You have zero evidence of molecules-to-man evolution. It never happened. It cannot possibly happen, as molecules do not form living systems.

[JosephK]

You have zero evidence of molecules-to-man evolution. It never happened. It cannot possibly happen, as molecules do not form living systems.

An odd thing to say, considering that if/when God created us, he very clearly used molecules.

[Wanderer]

An odd thing to say, considering that if/when God created us, he very clearly used molecules.

I think you know what I meant. Molecules do not form living systems on their own.

[Loki]

This is what would happen if anyone sent a pdf effectively disproving evolution. The editors would just want to ravage that and call it a day as quickly as possible at first, since they've seen such attempts many times before and nobody managed to do so. Then they would realize they can't really do that. And as the participants on the project that turned the entire paradigm upside down, they would each get a grant such that they can buy a hotel in Magaluf and a tenure at whatever university they'd choose. Science isn't about maintaining the established old rules, but about breaking them when it's possible.

In theory it is supposed to work in that way, but in reality most modern academics are a bunch of PC hypocrites and cowards. 99% of them wouldn't do something that would endanger their career. They wouldn't upset the applecart just for the sake of "truth". And we're seeing this cowardly attitudes more and more, it is after all how modern universities groom the students to be!

[Wanderer]

In theory it is supposed to work in that way, but in reality most modern academics are a bunch of PC hypocrites and cowards. 99% of them wouldn't do something that would endanger their career. They wouldn't upset the applecart just for the sake of "truth". And we're seeing this cowardly attitudes more and more, it is after all how modern universities groom the students to be!

Evolutionists have to come up with all manner of excuses for how the world can be old. We find dinosaur soft tissue and red blood cells, which could not have lasted 65 million years. Evolutionists have to come up with recusing devices for this. They have to come up with rescuing devices for the fact that the earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast, and could not be much older than the Bible's timeframe. They have to come up with rescuing devices for how, for example, Jupiter's moon Io has 100 times the volcanic activity of earth--when, if it were 4.6 billion years old, it could be old, cold, and dead and shouldn't have active volcanoes at all. Their proposed mechanisms (tidal friction) do not generate the amount of heat required for such an observation.