Still don't believe in evolution? Try this!

[PearlWatson]

Quick everyone

Throw your Darwin books in the trash can

Already did that a long time ago.

 

[PearlWatson]

Miller has only opposed those statements that countered his belief in Darwinism.

Fixed.

 

[PearlWatson]

Evolution is not random, the direction is supplied by the environment.

That statement is directly from Miller's biology textbook to describe evolution, so if you believe he truly opposed books that "mislead on evolution" he should oppose his own.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Already did that a long time ago.

Pear threw away his/her books on Darwinism a long time ago, along with his books on biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, medicine, epidemiology, etc. You know, all the hard sciences that have contributed so much to human progress and knowledge but which Pearl doesn't need because he, as a totally untrained layman, knows better than the scientists who have spent most their entire lives studying such things.

Why do we need science at all when we have political ideology or religion? After all, those two things have cured diseases, sent men to the moon, built bridges, developed computer technology, built bridges, explored the cosmos, developed airplane/jet technology, invented air warming and cooling technologies, etc. We don't need no damned scientists, we need more uninformed, unknowledgable, untrained political/religious ideologues to tell us how things really are.

 

[PearlWatson]

Pear threw away his/her books on Darwinism a long time ago, along with his books on biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, medicine, epidemiology, etc. You know, all the hard sciences that have contributed so much to human progress and knowledge but which Pearl doesn't need because he, as a totally untrained layman, knows better than the scientists who have spent most their entire lives studying such things.

Why do we need science at all when we have political ideology or religion? After all, those two things have cured diseases, sent men to the moon, built bridges, developed computer technology, built bridges, explored the cosmos, developed airplane/jet technology, invented air warming and cooling technologies, etc. We don't need no damned scientists, we need more uninformed, unknowledgable, untrained political/religious ideologues to tell us how things really are.

Darwin's stories ain't hard science. I love hard science and some soft science too. Just don't like Darwinism foisted on us as science.

All those bolded things are Intelligent Design science, they didn't just happen by accident as Darwinists want us to believe is how we came to be.

 

[[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]]

Darwin's stories ain't hard science. I love hard science and some soft science too. Just don't like Darwinism foisted on us as science.

All those bolded things are Intelligent Design science, they didn't just happen by accident as Darwinists want us to believe is how we came to be.

Thanks to you for preaching. You deserve you justice. We will get ares by have friends in IRS continuing investigate creationist and put into cell like we did Kent Hovind.

Everybody join rationalresponders.com with me we can force creationist into silence.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Darwin's stories ain't hard science. I love hard science and some soft science too. Just don't like Darwinism foisted on us as science.

All those bolded things are Intelligent Design science, they didn't just happen by accident as Darwinists want us to believe is how we came to be.

Evolution IS hard science. It has yielded numerous testable hypotheses over time involving several scientific disciplines. Intelligent design has yet to yield a single testable hypothesis.

The fact that you think evolution 'happens by accident' shows from the get go you have no f'n idea what evolution is.

 

[PearlWatson]

Evolution IS hard science. It has yielded numerous testable hypotheses over time involving several scientific disciplines. Intelligent design has yet to yield a single testable hypothesis.

The fact that you think evolution 'happens by accident' shows from the get go you have no f'n idea what evolution is.

Nah, it is fables about a bear falling into the ocean and becoming a whale.
A fish flying out of the ocean and becoming a bird.
Darwinists take a few bones and make up crackpot stories about them.
Or notice how a fish can use its fins to move on land so they must have sprouted legs and became frogs completely by accident.

At most Darwinism is a nondisprovable pseudoscience like Astrology.

Darwin's "testable hypothesis":

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would break down."

How the hell would you test that and would you accept this same test for creationism?:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by God, my God theory would absolutely break down."

 

[One Brow]

That statement is directly from Miller's biology textbook to describe evolution, so if you believe he truly opposed books that "mislead on evolution" he should oppose his own.

Why would he oppose environment-directed evolution?

 

[One Brow]

... completely by accident.

Evolution does not claim to happen by accident.

Darwin's "testable hypothesis":

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would break down."

That's one observation, and I agree with you on this much: that particular observation is not testable.

Darwin made hundreds of testable hypotheses based on his theory, the vast majority of which have since been confirmed. The particular statement is not even a hypothesis. That non-testability of some random individual statement is not relevant to the the accuracy of evolutionary theory.

 

[LogGrad98]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyqo313lUb4

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Evolution does not claim to happen by accident.



That's one observation, and I agree with you on this much: that particular observation is not testable.

Darwin made hundreds of testable hypotheses based on his theory, the vast majority of which have since been confirmed. The particular statement is not even a hypothesis. That non-testability of some random individual statement is not relevant to the the accuracy of evolutionary theory.

For his next act Pearl will tell a molecular chemist why molecular chemistry is a pseudo science and why his (Pearl's) lay opinion on the topic is more valid than the molecular chemist's.

 

[LogGrad98]

For his next act Pearl will tell a molecular chemist why molecular chemistry is a pseudo science and why his (Pearl's) lay opinion on the topic is more valid than the molecular chemist's.

OB is not an evolution scientist.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

OB is not an evolution scientist.

Obviously. I'm referring to Pearl's penchant for elevating a layman's politically/religiously informed opinions over scientific knowledge.

 

[PearlWatson]

For his next act Pearl will tell a molecular chemist why molecular chemistry is a pseudo science and why his (Pearl's) lay opinion on the topic is more valid than the molecular chemist's.

Opinions ain't science.

Darwinism is the pseudoscience. Darwin Cultists try to infuse it into real science but that only corrupts real science.

A biochemist showed me how he "broke down" Darwin's theory on Darwin's own terms. Ever since then all I see is nothing but a bunch of Darwin cultists pushing their religious beliefs on school children.

 

[♪alt13]

Darwinism isn't a religion(no special hats)

Opinions ain't science.

Darwinism is the pseudoscience. Darwin Cultists try to infuse it into real science but that only corrupts real science.

A biochemist showed me how he "broke down" Darwin's theory on Darwin's own terms. Ever since then all I see is nothing but a bunch of Darwin cultists pushing their religious beliefs on school children.

 

[LogGrad98]

 

[One Brow]

A biochemist ...

Behe's material has been refuted more times than I care to count, in pretty much every way you can name.

 

[MVP]

Opinions ain't science.

Darwinism is the pseudoscience.
.

I am wondering what you think about crime scene investigators. Criminology. Forensic science. Pseudosciece as well?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Opinions ain't science.

Darwinism is the pseudoscience. Darwin Cultists try to infuse it into real science but that only corrupts real science.

A biochemist showed me how he "broke down" Darwin's theory on Darwin's own terms. Ever since then all I see is nothing but a bunch of Darwin cultists pushing their religious beliefs on school children.

Tell me, Pearl, how do you define science?