INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Science Disproves Evolution

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#821 Post by Tetenterre » November 29th, 2017, 2:45 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Pahu wrote: I prefer to use the words of those better informed than I.
How can you know they are better informed and not merely baffling you with bullshit?

The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution.
No, they don't. Frequent repetition of a falsehood does not make it true.
 For example:

[center]Darwin’s finches[/center][/color]

https://creation.com/darwins-finches
[/quote]

You have posted a link that does not address any specific substantive points pertaining to the Grants' work on Daphne Major. Why did you do that? Did you hope that I wouldn't notice?
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#822 Post by Pahu » November 29th, 2017, 8:07 pm

Tetenterre wrote:
Pahu wrote: I prefer to use the words of those better informed than I.
How can you know they are better informed and not merely baffling you with bullshit?

The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution.
No, they don't. Frequent repetition of a falsehood does not make it true.
 For example:

[center]Darwin’s finches[/center][/color]

https://creation.com/darwins-finches
You have posted a link that does not address any specific substantive points pertaining to the Grants' work on Daphne Major. Why did you do that? Did you hope that I wouldn't notice?[/quote]

Who is interested in Grants' work on Daphne Major?

The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Unnecessary graphic and copy & pasted text deleted by Admin

http://www.icr.org/article/new-finch-sp ... servation/
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#823 Post by Tetenterre » November 30th, 2017, 3:28 pm

Pahu wrote:
Tetenterre wrote: You have posted a link that does not address any specific substantive points pertaining to the Grants' work on Daphne Major. Why did you do that? Did you hope that I wouldn't notice?
Who is interested in Grants' work on Daphne Major?
Are you taking the piss, Pahu? The Grants' work on Daphne Major was the substance of the link I posted here, that you pretended wasn't evidence for evolution. You should be very interested in the Grants' work - it blows your silly creationist claptrap out of the water.

Oh and you latest C&P drivel from Brian Thomas is entirely irrelevant to evidence that emerged 8 years after it was written. Surely you can see that? Or was posting that just taking the piss as well?
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#824 Post by Pahu » November 30th, 2017, 5:53 pm

Tetenterre wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Tetenterre wrote: You have posted a link that does not address any specific substantive points pertaining to the Grants' work on Daphne Major. Why did you do that? Did you hope that I wouldn't notice?
Who is interested in Grants' work on Daphne Major?
Are you taking the piss, Pahu? The Grants' work on Daphne Major was the substance of the link I posted here, that you pretended wasn't evidence for evolution. You should be very interested in the Grants' work - it blows your silly creationist claptrap out of the water.

Oh and you latest C&P drivel from Brian Thomas is entirely irrelevant to evidence that emerged 8 years after it was written. Surely you can see that? Or was posting that just taking the piss as well?

It seems you and the Grants are jumping to conclusions. The finches are still finches as the article by Brian Thomas points out. They have not changed into a different kind, which evolution demands.
Unnecessary graphic and copy & pasted text deleted by Admin

New Finch Species Shows Conservation, Not Macroevolution http://www.icr.org/article/new-finch-sp ... servation/
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#825 Post by Tetenterre » November 30th, 2017, 7:17 pm

Pahu wrote:It seems you and the Grants are jumping to conclusions. The finches are still finches as the article by Brian Thomas points out. They have not changed into a different kind, which evolution demands.
Oh FFS, Pahu! Repeating Thomas's falsehood does not magically make it true. Either you are taking the piss or you lack the wit to comprehend the Grants' work. There are no other possibilities.

Also, now we add "conservation" to the list of things you don't understand (or pretend not to understand).
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#826 Post by Pahu » November 30th, 2017, 8:19 pm

Tetenterre wrote:
Pahu wrote:It seems you and the Grants are jumping to conclusions. The finches are still finches as the article by Brian Thomas points out. They have not changed into a different kind, which evolution demands.
Oh FFS, Pahu! Repeating Thomas's falsehood does not magically make it true. Either you are taking the piss or you lack the wit to comprehend the Grants' work. There are no other possibilities.

Also, now we add "conservation" to the list of things you don't understand (or pretend not to understand).
There is nothing false about Brian Thomas' article. Your unwillingness to comprehend it does not make it false.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

VINDICATOR
Posts: 593
Joined: December 22nd, 2016, 11:07 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#827 Post by VINDICATOR » December 1st, 2017, 9:49 am

Pahu and Tetenterre in a great debate on evolution. Keep it friendly. I know very little on evolution, so I can't participate. I am an astronomy geek. If you have any questions on astronomy you can ask me.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6521
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#828 Post by animist » December 1st, 2017, 10:14 am

VINDICATOR wrote:Pahu and Tetenterre in a great debate on evolution. Keep it friendly. I know very little on evolution, so I can't participate. I am an astronomy geek. If you have any questions on astronomy you can ask me.
I too know little about evolution, but I think we can both learn from this debate. Pahu is pointing out (or rather demonstrating) that clever people, and there are creationists who are pretty clever, are able to pick holes in the theory of evolution which virtually all people today, including most Christians, accept. It is worth trying to pick out flaws in these arguments, which depend, in the case of human evolution, from the underlying agenda that any fossil found must be either ape or human - thus Neanderthals are human but Lucy was an ape.

Pahu, I am addressing you now. What about homo habilis? Please read the attached Wiki article and come back with some genuine thoughts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#829 Post by Pahu » December 1st, 2017, 4:20 pm

animist wrote:
VINDICATOR wrote:Pahu and Tetenterre in a great debate on evolution. Keep it friendly. I know very little on evolution, so I can't participate. I am an astronomy geek. If you have any questions on astronomy you can ask me.
I too know little about evolution, but I think we can both learn from this debate. Pahu is pointing out (or rather demonstrating) that clever people, and there are creationists who are pretty clever, are able to pick holes in the theory of evolution which virtually all people today, including most Christians, accept. It is worth trying to pick out flaws in these arguments, which depend, in the case of human evolution, from the underlying agenda that any fossil found must be either ape or human - thus Neanderthals are human but Lucy was an ape.

Pahu, I am addressing you now. What about homo habilis? Please read the attached Wiki article and come back with some genuine thoughts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis
The article starts off with an evidence free assumption that the fossils lived over a million yeas ago. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Startling Discoveries Support Creation

Unnecessary copy & pasted text deleted by Admin

http://www.icr.org/article/startling-di ... -creation/
Last edited by Alan H on December 1st, 2017, 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Ho hum...
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24054
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#830 Post by Alan H » December 1st, 2017, 4:29 pm

What about your paradox, Pahu? When are you going to get round to answering that?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 632
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#831 Post by Lord Muck oGentry » December 2nd, 2017, 1:13 am

Pahu wrote:The article starts off with an evidence free assumption [...]
You seem to be using that phrase as the the Psalmist uses Selah or the sub-Shakespearean jester uses Hey nonny nonny: because the audience hasn't heard it for a while, or perhaps because nonsense must be promoted to doggerel.

Dating techniques are well established, and they are getting better as we go along:
http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/ ... m1490.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_h ... on_fossils

Amazing stuff, science. Always uncertain, always getting nearer the truth because it allows evidence to decide.
Whereas creationism...
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6521
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#832 Post by animist » December 2nd, 2017, 6:08 pm

Pahu wrote:[quote="animist]
Pahu, I am addressing you now. What about homo habilis? Please read the attached Wiki article and come back with some genuine thoughts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis
The article starts off with an evidence free assumption that the fossils lived over a million yeas ago. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example: [/quote][/quote][/quote]Pahu, I do not mean to be gratuitously offensive, but you really disappoint me as a speaker for Creationism. The assumption that the fossils (actually the creatures who became fossils!) lived at a certain time was nothing to do with the reason for my post. Regardless of the dates, assuming that they lived at all, were they apes or humans?

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#833 Post by Tetenterre » December 4th, 2017, 12:18 pm

Pahu, please explain how an opinion piece (Brian Thomas's) written in 2009 addresses findings that were made in 2016/17. Speciation has been observed. Your "finches are still finches" comment is about as relevant to speciation as saying "primates are still primates": chimpanzees are a different species to silverback gorillas.

Your statement "not changed into a different kind, which evolution demands" is meaningless: "kind" has no meaning where speciation is concerned; evolution does not "demand" anything; it is merely a word that means "generational changes in inherited traits" (i.e. precisely what has been observed on Daphne Major).
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#834 Post by Tetenterre » December 4th, 2017, 1:12 pm

VINDICATOR wrote: I am an astronomy geek.
Same here. What's your speciality? (Mine's HEA on the theoretical side, and I recently acquired an Alpy so I can split starlight from home on the practical side - still getting to grips with it. :D )
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#835 Post by Pahu » December 6th, 2017, 7:42 pm

Ape-Men? 2

Unnecessary copy & pasted text and graphics deleted by Admin

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24054
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#836 Post by Alan H » December 6th, 2017, 9:51 pm

What about your paradox, Pahu? When are you going to get round to answering that?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#837 Post by Pahu » December 7th, 2017, 7:01 pm

Alan H wrote:What about your paradox, Pahu? When are you going to get round to answering that?

What paradox?
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#838 Post by Pahu » December 7th, 2017, 7:09 pm

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:
Pahu wrote:The article starts off with an evidence free assumption [...]
You seem to be using that phrase as the the Psalmist uses Selah or the sub-Shakespearean jester uses Hey nonny nonny: because the audience hasn't heard it for a while, or perhaps because nonsense must be promoted to doggerel.

Dating techniques are well established, and they are getting better as we go along:
http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/ ... m1490.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_h ... on_fossils

Amazing stuff, science. Always uncertain, always getting nearer the truth because it allows evidence to decide.
Whereas creationism...
Dating methods are unreliable. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Radiometric Dating

Unnecessary copy & pasted text deleted by Admin

http://www.icr.org/creation-radiometric
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#839 Post by Pahu » December 7th, 2017, 7:11 pm

animist wrote:
Pahu wrote:[quote="animist]
Pahu, I am addressing you now. What about homo habilis? Please read the attached Wiki article and come back with some genuine thoughts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis
The article starts off with an evidence free assumption that the fossils lived over a million yeas ago. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
[/quote][/quote]Pahu, I do not mean to be gratuitously offensive, but you really disappoint me as a speaker for Creationism. The assumption that the fossils (actually the creatures who became fossils!) lived at a certain time was nothing to do with the reason for my post. Regardless of the dates, assuming that they lived at all, were they apes or humans?[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Apes were apes and humans were humans.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#840 Post by Pahu » December 7th, 2017, 7:16 pm

Tetenterre wrote:Pahu, please explain how an opinion piece (Brian Thomas's) written in 2009 addresses findings that were made in 2016/17. Speciation has been observed. Your "finches are still finches" comment is about as relevant to speciation as saying "primates are still primates": chimpanzees are a different species to silverback gorillas.

Your statement "not changed into a different kind, which evolution demands" is meaningless: "kind" has no meaning where speciation is concerned; evolution does not "demand" anything; it is merely a word that means "generational changes in inherited traits" (i.e. precisely what has been observed on Daphne Major).
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Unnecessary copy & pasted text and graphics deleted by Admin

http://www.icr.org/article/darwins-finc ... igenetics/
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24054
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#841 Post by Alan H » December 7th, 2017, 7:47 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:What about your paradox, Pahu? When are you going to get round to answering that?

What paradox?
:hilarity: Your bible one. The one you created. Such a short memory, Pahu?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply