There Is Scientific Proof of a Creator. Evolution Can Be Disproved

crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
Don't be fooled. The science is there.





[video=youtube;ppIgFEFUpjw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppIgFEFUpjw[/video]
 
crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
More to come.



[video=youtube;KNeCI7T-l7I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNeCI7T-l7I&feature=channel[/video]
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
I suggest you familiarize yourself with common logical fallacies and watch these vids again.


Proof of god is not hard to find considering the concept is unfalsifiable. Anything you look at becomes evidence. A butterfly, a rainbow, a human hair, are all evidence of god to a true believer. That concept involves about as much science as those videos.

If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people. - Dr House
 
crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
Heisenberg said:
I suggest you familiarize yourself with common logical fallacies and watch these vids again.
Click to expand...

Your right that Nasa scientist must not have understood your logical fallacies. That molecular biologists is completely confused. What about all the scientists that signed "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" they must not know about these logical fallacies either. Here are a few of the scientists names that must not understand.

Henry F. Schaefer, Nobel Nominee, Director of Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth, Prof.of Cellular & Molecular Physiology,Yale Grad.
School• Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry, NAS member • Frank Tipler, Prof. of Mathematical Physics,Tulane U. • Robert Kaita, Plasma Physics Lab, Princeton • Michael
Behe, Prof. of Biological Science, Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn, PhD Biochemistry-U. of Illinois • Tony Mega,Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry,Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus
of Biology, San Francisco State • Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath • Daniel Kuebler, Asst. Prof. of Biology, Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David
Keller, Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry, U. of New Mexico • James Keesling, Prof. of Mathematics, U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch, PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert
Newman, PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval, Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry, U. of Colorado • Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College • William A. Dembski, PhD
Mathematics-U. of Chicago • George Lebo, Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy, U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish, PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener, Prof. of
Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering, U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks, Prof. of Signal & Image Processing, U. of Washington • Carl Poppe, Senior Fellow, Lawrence Livermore
Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology,Technische Universität München • Gregory Shearer, Postdoc. Researcher Internal Medicine, U. C. Davis • Joseph Atkinson,
PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.,American Chemical William P. Purcell, PhD Physical Chemistry-PrincetonSociety member • Lawrence H. Johnston, Emeritus • Wesley Allen, Prof. of Computational Quantum
Prof. of Physics, U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich, Prof., Dept Chemistry, U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko,Ass
 
crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
[video=youtube;OWng3m7REdQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWng3m7REdQ&feature=&p=9D51375433A0471F&index=0&playnext=1[/video]
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
The banana was made by god for man because it fits so nicely in our hand, and is so easy for us to eat? How do you explain a pineapple?

Your right that Nasa scientist must not have understood your logical fallacies. That molecular biologists is completely confused. What about all the scientists that signed "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" they must not know about these logical fallacies either. Here are a few of the scientists names that must not understand.
Click to expand...
Scientists are not fool proof, a fact that is well known, especially if they are outside of their field of study. This is why we have something called peer review. Peer review is the very reson the concepts in those videos have remained in pseudoscience, instead of mainstream. Just because someone works in the field of science does not mean they are critical thinkers.
 
I

Illumination

New Member
"Two hands working can accomplish more than a thousand clasped in prayer" - Heisenberg

very thought provoking sig there my friend

Namaste':leaf:
 
crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
[video=youtube;sSwh0X3ph-w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSwh0X3ph-w&feature=related[/video]



Basically all I am getting at is there is more than one point of view on how this world got here. Many of the worlds leading scientist admit that they see evidence that there may be creative design.
 
Pipe Dream

Pipe Dream

Well-Known Member
I've been watching the video and nothing has convinced me that there is a god and that evoloution is wrong. They only saw darwin is wrong about us coming from one single organism but admit that evolution happens. They talk about an explosion of different types of creatures but that isn't proof of god but it is interesting. However life started it'snot far fetched to believe many different types of life emerged at the same time and evolution has been happening since.

The inhabiting parameters seem to be what we need to survive or inhabit another planet not necessarily what life needs to exist. Perhaps there is life somewhere else that doesn't require the same laws which would basically make the whole statistical improbabilities they talk about irrelevant. We exist because it's here not the other way around and life has been evolving with the current scenarios therefore if something was taken away life AS WE KNOW IT could not exist.

There is definately not any proof that god as is worshipped is real only that there seems to be a beginning, and hasn't answered the age old questions like what came first the chicken or the egg? or if there is god where did god come from? I like my scietifical shows to stick to the facts and not beliefs.
 
crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
Heisenberg said:
The banana was made by god for man because it fits so nicely in our hand, and is so easy for us to eat? How do you explain a pineapple?

Scientists are not fool proof, a fact that is well known, especially if they are outside of their field of study. This is why we have something called peer review. Peer review is the very reson the concepts in those videos have remained in pseudoscience, instead of mainstream. Just because someone works in the field of science does not mean they are critical thinkers.
Click to expand...


Oh I see now. The scientific argument only works if your against creation. But as soon as someone brings up some scientific evidence for creation than your response is "Scientists are not fool proof". All those scientists where professionals in the field of study that they where speaking about. They did not have a Mathematician on there talking about biology. They had a biologist talking about biology. As for peer review, what do you think prompted the document I spoke of earlier "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism". That was a long list of who's who in the science community that reject Darwin's theory. Oh well I guess those opinions don't line up with what you want to believe so lets just ignore them eh. Makes perfect sense.
 
crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Disproving the TOE does not make the idea that a god did it any more likely. Your list of scientific dissenters claim, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
The term Darwinism is at best ambiguous and means different things depending on who you talk to. Larmarckism was an alternative to natural selection or 'Darwinism.'
Nothing in that statement says that organisms don't evolve.

Biology, you're right in my wheelhouse. I will treat you kindly if you do likewise. I will watch your hour long videos if you watch a few 10 minute ones. I think you will find these much more entertaining than just watching an interview regardless of how you feel about the topic. I encourage you to really pay attention, AronRa talks fast at times and throws a lot of information out there but I seriously would appreciate it if you would watch carefully and answer some honest questions regarding some of the points made.
I will do the same for your videos.

[youtube]91UAzMNUDLU[/youtube]
[youtube]wH8LOQAu-5I[/youtube]
[youtube]J3yDOp8Dv8Y[/youtube]
[youtube]TUxLR9hdorI[/youtube]
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
I stand by science, just not humans, As I explained, humans are fallable, including myself. This is why science is constantly changing it's mind in the face of new evidence. Diffrence is, when science is wrong, it takes note and corrects it, religion never changes it's mind in spite of evidence, but would rather manufacture evidence to support it's conclusions.

From wikipedia
The claims made in the document have been rejected by the scientific community. Robert T. Pennock says that intelligent design proponents are "manufacturing dissent" in order to explain the absence of scientific debate of their claims: "The "scientific" claims of such neo-creationists rely, in part, on the notion that these issues [surrounding evolution] are the subject of suppressed debate among biologists. " ... "according to neo-creationists, the apparent absence of this discussion and the nearly universal rejection of neo-creationist claims must be due to the conspiracy among professional biologists instead of a lack of scientific merit." The statement in the document is described as artfully phrased to represent a diverse range of opinions, set in a context which gives it a misleading spin to confuse the public. The listed affiliations and areas of expertise of the signatories have also been criticized.

Critics have also noted that the wording and advertising of the original statement was, and remains, misleading, and that a review of the signatories suggested many doubt evolution due to religious, rather than scientific beliefs. The claims made for the importance of the list have also been called intellectually dishonest because it represents only a small fraction of the scientific community, and includes an even smaller number of relevant experts.

In addition, the list was signed by only about 0.01% of scientists in the relevant fields. According to the National Science Foundation, there were approximately 955,300 biological scientists in the United States in 1999. The theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community. Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".
Click to expand...
Looks to me like peer review rejected the document.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top