Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Blitzking

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT "EVOLUTION"?

Recommended Posts

I know this has been gone over many many times before, but it is important to bring it up from time to time.  :think:

Just WHAT IS the Scientific Evidence that supports the hypothetical (Abiogenesis) hypothesis (Microbe to Man) of Evolution?

Please remember that, WISHFUL SPECULATION, UNVERIFIED HYPOTHESIS, HOPEFUL GUESSES AND JUST SO STORIES,

will not be allowed in this classroom!

AND Evidence for well know phenomena such as Variation, Adaptation, Speciation or De-volution  i.e. Finches beaks,

Cave fish going blind, Moth colors, Weak bacteria lacking enzymes targeted by antibiotics, Dog ears, Mutated

fruit flies with 2 FATAL extra wings, Bear coats, Dog Ears and Squirrel tails Etc.     Will not be allowed either!!

 

TIME FOR SOME REAL SCIENCE!!!  ANY VOLUNTEERS?

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Blitzking said:

I know this has been gone over many many times before, but it is important to bring it up from time to time.  :think:

Just WHAT IS the Scientific Evidence that supports the hypothetical (Abiogenesis) hypothesis (Microbe to Man) of Evolution?

Please remember that, WISHFUL SPECULATION, UNVERIFIED HYPOTHESIS, HOPEFUL GUESSES AND JUST SO STORIES,

will not be allowed in this classroom!

AND Evidence for well know phenomena such as Variation, Adaptation, Speciation or De-volution  i.e. Finches beaks,

Cave fish going blind, Moth colors, Weak bacteria lacking enzymes targeted by antibiotics, Dog ears, Mutated

fruit flies with 2 FATAL extra wings, Bear coats, Dog Ears and Squirrel tails Etc.     Will not be allowed either!!

 

TIME FOR SOME REAL SCIENCE!!!  ANY VOLUNTEERS?

 

 

WOW!!! I for 1 am found speechless in regards that you, BlitzKing have but the sound of utter silence on this most challenging 'Topic' for Evo's.....

Perhaps Richard Dawkins (Dorkskins) could make a "Special Guest Appearance" and commit to 'Take On Your Challenge' here...

But i, being of sound mind, will assume you will have absolutely NO ATHEIST responding, as it is indeed a rather IMPOSSIBLE TASK for them to be mental confronted with their NONSENSE and NON-SCIENCE when trying at the most basic level to give any coherent, rational answer while staying 'INSIDE'  the parameters of your Topic.....

Hence, they can only be found utterly STUPIFIED....

If the song  Stupify by disturbed did not contain such filthy lyrics i would post it here, as it seems rather fitting for them.. Disturbed - Stupify Lyrics

Nonetheless i shall post some of the lyrics here as these are not so filthy, "I find myself stupified coming back again. Why, do you like playing around with. My narrow scope of REALITY, I can feel it all slipping, i think i'm breaking down,

See, but i don't get it. Don't you think maybe we could put it on CREDIT......... 

(Hebrew) TEFACHED (Meaning In English) BE SCARED!!!!!!!!

Look in my face, stare in my soul i begin STUPIFY....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KillurBluff said:

WOW!!! I for 1 am found speechless in regards that you, BlitzKing have but the sound of utter silence on this most challenging 'Topic' for Evo's.....

Perhaps Richard Dawkins (Dorkskins) could make a "Special Guest Appearance" and commit to 'Take On Your Challenge' here...

But i, being of sound mind, will assume you will have absolutely NO ATHEIST responding, as it is indeed a rather IMPOSSIBLE TASK for them to be mental confronted with their NONSENSE and NON-SCIENCE when trying at the most basic level to give any coherent, rational answer while staying 'INSIDE'  the parameters of your Topic.....

Hence, they can only be found utterly STUPIFIED....

If the song  Stupify by disturbed did not contain such filthy lyrics i would post it here, as it seems rather fitting for them.. Disturbed - Stupify Lyrics

Nonetheless i shall post some of the lyrics here as these are not so filthy, "I find myself stupified coming back again. Why, do you like playing around with. My narrow scope of REALITY, I can feel it all slipping, i think i'm breaking down,

See, but i don't get it. Don't you think maybe we could put it on CREDIT......... 

(Hebrew) TEFACHED (Meaning In English) BE SCARED!!!!!!!!

Look in my face, stare in my soul i begin STUPIFY....

Perhaps Richard Dawkins couldmake a "Special Guest Appearance" and commit to 'Take On Your Challenge' here.

 

Good luck with that...LOL... He chooses his spots VERY CAREFULLY... He wants nothing to do with this thread... 

 

Him and his fellow cons trying to find their way onto this page to face someone like me on this topic is like an escaped criminal trying to find a cop... LOL.  

 

IT ISNT GOING TO HAPPEN...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2019 at 4:28 PM, KillurBluff said:

WOW!!! I for 1 am found speechless in regards that you, BlitzKing have but the sound of utter silence on this most challenging 'Topic' for Evo's.....

Perhaps Richard Dawkins (Dorkskins) could make a "Special Guest Appearance" and commit to 'Take On Your Challenge' here...

But i, being of sound mind, will assume you will have absolutely NO ATHEIST responding, as it is indeed a rather IMPOSSIBLE TASK for them to be mental confronted with their NONSENSE and NON-SCIENCE when trying at the most basic level to give any coherent, rational answer while staying 'INSIDE'  the parameters of your Topic.....

Hence, they can only be found utterly STUPIFIED....

If the song  Stupify by disturbed did not contain such filthy lyrics i would post it here, as it seems rather fitting for them.. Disturbed - Stupify Lyrics

Nonetheless i shall post some of the lyrics here as these are not so filthy, "I find myself stupified coming back again. Why, do you like playing around with. My narrow scope of REALITY, I can feel it all slipping, i think i'm breaking down,

See, but i don't get it. Don't you think maybe we could put it on CREDIT......... 

(Hebrew) TEFACHED (Meaning In English) BE SCARED!!!!!!!!

Look in my face, stare in my soul i begin STUPIFY....

The sound of crickets seem to rule the day on this thread.... I wonder why?  (Just kidding)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2019 at 6:23 PM, Blitzking said:

The sound of crickets seem to rule the day on this thread.... I wonder why?  (Just kidding)

:rotfl2:Still The Sounds Of Silence, have been offered up???

Well Just HOW in the WHOLE WIDE WORLD Of Sports can this BE!?!?!???

After all I for 1 have ALWAYS heard that "Evolution Was A Fact Of SCIENCE", and just as sure as ''Gravity".... 

Surely any one of you 'Evolution Postulates' can provide SOMETHING!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2019 at 6:23 PM, Blitzking said:

The sound of crickets seem to rule the day on this thread.... I wonder why?  (Just kidding)

1 hour ago, KillurBluff said:

:rotfl2:Still The Sounds Of Silence, have been offered up???

Well Just HOW in the WHOLE WIDE WORLD Of Sports can this BE!?!?!???

After all I for 1 have ALWAYS heard that "Evolution Was A Fact Of SCIENCE", and just as sure as ''Gravity".... 

Surely any one of you 'Evolution Postulates' can provide SOMETHING!!!

 

Probably has a lot to do with the criteria which pretty much disallows everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, piasan said:

Probably has a lot to do with the criteria which pretty much disallows everything.

 

On 1/21/2019 at 6:23 PM, Blitzking said:

The sound of crickets seem to rule the day on this thread.... I wonder why?  (Just kidding)

 

 

:rotfl3:Not so piasan, the 'Criteria' ONLY ALLOWS for 100% EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC PROOFS, for the Delusional aspirations of its postulates to present their supposed "Closed Case" sir....

But this IS of course exactly why we will NEVER witness any such so-called EVIDENCE For it, because quote; WISHFUL SPECULATION, UNVERIFIED HYPOTHESIS, HOPEFUL GUESSES AND JUST SO STORIES ARE NOT ALLOWED....

So just as stated, that ONLY IF; "Evolution Was A Fact Of SCIENCE", and just as sure as ''Gravity" THEN COME now and PLEAD the EMPIRICAL case that all the Evolutionary Postulates suppose exist...

Surely if you are found 'Lacked' in a concise presentation i would assume the likes of Richard Dawkins, Michio KaKu, Lawrence Krauss, Niel deGrasse Tyson etc. etc. etc., not to exclude wibble, Goku, Perpetual Student, Siili,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2019 at 6:23 PM, Blitzking said:

The sound of crickets seem to rule the day on this thread.... I wonder why?  (Just kidding)

11 hours ago, KillurBluff said:

:rotfl2:Still The Sounds Of Silence, have been offered up???

Well Just HOW in the WHOLE WIDE WORLD Of Sports can this BE!?!?!???

After all I for 1 have ALWAYS heard that "Evolution Was A Fact Of SCIENCE", and just as sure as ''Gravity".... 

Surely any one of you 'Evolution Postulates' can provide SOMETHING!!!

10 hours ago, piasan said:

Probably has a lot to do with the criteria which pretty much disallows everything.

1 hour ago, KillurBluff said:

:rotfl3:Not so piasan, the 'Criteria' ONLY ALLOWS for 100% EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC PROOFS, for the Delusional aspirations of its postulates to present their supposed "Closed Case" sir....

 

 

 

 

You wouldn't know "100% EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC PROOFS" if they bit your donkey.  For example, there's "100% EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF" the speed of light was within a few percent of modern values measured on Earth when it left objects tens of thousands of light years, and even billions of light years from Earth.  For some reason, you also seem to think that if light slows by less than 0.0002% it somehow solves the YEC need for the average speed of light to be 230,000,000% faster (on average).

 

1 hour ago, KillurBluff said:

But this IS of course exactly why we will NEVER witness any such so-called EVIDENCE For it, because quote; WISHFUL SPECULATION, UNVERIFIED HYPOTHESIS, HOPEFUL GUESSES AND JUST SO STORIES ARE NOT ALLOWED....

Yeah.  I'm used to seeing a lot of that from creationists with regard to the Light Travel Time problem.  We also got a pretty fair dose of it from you in the discussion of the Earth at the center of the universe.  Do I sense a bit of hypocrisy here?

 

2 hours ago, KillurBluff said:

So just as stated, that ONLY IF; "Evolution Was A Fact Of SCIENCE", and just as sure as ''Gravity" THEN COME now and PLEAD the EMPIRICAL case that all the Evolutionary Postulates suppose exist...

Gravity is another one that you ran from.  In the "center of the universe" discussion, I explained that systems orbit their center of mass.  No exceptions.  It's something I demonstrate for my 8th and 9th graders using a meter stick, Expo marker, and a heavy object.  You were unable to answer the first simple question on the matter...... based on the laws of gravitational motion, how does the Sun (and the rest of the universe) orbit the much LESS massive Earth?  You rolled over and died with some vague claim about electricity and/or magnetism being a "better" explanation than gravity but couldn't take it past that initial (unsupported) assertion.

The short answer is that I'm not going to play a game rigged by Blitz any more than I was willing to play one rigged by Dr. Walt Brown when I first joined this list. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, piasan said:

 

You wouldn't know "100% EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC PROOFS" if they bit your donkey.  For example, there's "100% EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF" the speed of light was within a few percent of modern values measured on Earth when it left objects tens of thousands of light years, and even billions of light years from Earth.  For some reason, you also seem to think that if light slows by less than 0.0002% it somehow solves the YEC need for the average speed of light to be 230,000,000% faster (on average).

 

 

Yeah.  I'm used to seeing a lot of that from creationists with regard to the Light Travel Time problem.  We also got a pretty fair dose of it from you in the discussion of the Earth at the center of the universe.  Do I sense a bit of hypocrisy here?

 

Gravity is another one that you ran from.  In the "center of the universe" discussion, I explained that systems orbit their center of mass.  No exceptions.  It's something I demonstrate for my 8th and 9th graders using a meter stick, Expo marker, and a heavy object.  You were unable to answer the first simple question on the matter...... based on the laws of gravitational motion, how does the Sun (and the rest of the universe) orbit the much LESS massive Earth?  You rolled over and died with some vague claim about electricity and/or magnetism being a "better" explanation than gravity but couldn't take it past that initial (unsupported) assertion.

The short answer is that I'm not going to play a game rigged by Blitz any more than I was willing to play one rigged by Dr. Walt Brown when I first joined this list. 

You wouldn't know "100% EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC PROOFS" if they bit your donkey.  For example, there's "100% EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF" the speed of light was within a few percent of modern values measured on Earth when it left objects tens of thousands of light years, and even billions of light years from Earth.  For some reason, you also seem to think that if light slows by less than 0.0002% it somehow solves the YEC need for the average speed of light to be 230,000,000% faster (on average).

 

Your Cognitive Dissonance has your mind diluted piasan, your statement of quote; there's "100% EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF" the speed of light was within a few percent of modern values measured on Earth when it left objects tens of thousands of light years, and even billions of light years from Earth. has already been dead and buried. In 'The Absurdity Of Theistic Evolution' topic... 

So please do wake up, and shed your brainwashing piasan..

What exactly has this to do with your delusion of EVOLUTION by the way?? Delusions again??

 

Yeah.  I'm used to seeing a lot of that from creationists with regard to the Light Travel Time problem.  We also got a pretty fair dose of it from you in the discussion of the Earth at the center of the universe.  Do I sense a bit of hypocrisy here?

Nay piasan, what i PROVED without ANY DOUBT in the 'Is The Earth The Center Of The Universe' topic was that "Both Are Conventions" BUT just like The EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF that has shown 'Light Speed' to indeed be 'ANISTROPIC' and so ASC is more FITTING to the Empirical Scientific PROOFS that  show with EMPIRICAL PROOF, LIKEWISE ALL MEASUREMENTS from C.O.B.E, W.M.A.P., Sloan, and ALL OTHERS have in fact show from the Empirical Scientific evidence that 'All The Planes (ALL 8 Of Them) Line Up With Our EARTH'!!!

Remember the 'Equinoxes'???

All you did to even try and combat the Empirical Scientific Evidence was to show an 'Illusion, Dots On PAPER' to try and say "We See Anywhere As The Center, If We Were 'There' At Any 1 of Those Hailed 'Dots On Paper'.... REMEMBER??

Again piasan, just EXACTLY WHAT does this have to do with your delusion of Evolution???

 

 

Gravity is another one that you ran from.  In the "center of the universe" discussion, I explained that systems orbit their center of mass.  No exceptions.  It's something I demonstrate for my 8th and 9th graders using a meter stick, Expo marker, and a heavy object.  You were unable to answer the first simple question on the matter...... based on the laws of gravitational motion, how does the Sun (and the rest of the universe) orbit the much LESS massive Earth?  You rolled over and died with some vague claim about electricity and/or magnetism being a "better" explanation than gravity but couldn't take it past that initial (unsupported) assertion.

 

Nay again piasan i continued with the 'Thought Experiments' and showed 'FROM N.A.S.A.' how the 'Gravity Solution' was NO SUCH A SOLUTION at ALL, Remember???

And YET AGAIN piasan, just EXACTLY WHAT does THIS have to do with your delusion of Evolution???

 

STOP trying to play GAMES piasan, STOP trying to 'OBFUSCATE' the REALITY into RELATIVITY, it will NO LONGER WORK HERE sir...

 

The short answer is that I'm not going to play a game rigged by Blitz any more than I was willing to play one rigged by Dr. Walt Brown when I first joined this list. 

A most 'Likely And Indeed ONLY' fall back and DIE position YOU and indeed EVERY OTHER Evolutionist can begin to dream of MUSTERING from your dead breaths when trying to build up an 'Empirically Scientifically Supported'  'RESCUE DEVICE' for your D.(ead0 O.(n) A.(rrival) delusions...

The SHORT answer is INDEED that you, 'Can NOT PLAY GAMES HERE ANY LONGER PIASAN' with the TRUTH..

As told to you already you WILL be 'Called Out On Your Pseudo Science Claims EVERY TIME' now sir...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, piasan said:

ou wouldn't know "100% EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC PROOFS" if they bit your donkey.  For example, there's "100% EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF" the speed of light was within a few percent of modern values measured on Earth when it left objects tens of thousands of light years, and even billions of light years from Earth.  For some reason, you also seem to think that if light slows by less than 0.0002% it somehow solves the YEC need for the average speed of light to be 230,000,000% faster (on average).

47 minutes ago, KillurBluff said:

Your Cognitive Dissonance has your mind diluted piasan, your statement of quote; there's "100% EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF" the speed of light was within a few percent of modern values measured on Earth when it left objects tens of thousands of light years, and even billions of light years from Earth. has already been dead and buried. In 'The Absurdity Of Theistic Evolution' topic...

 

No, it hasn't.  I have pointed to multiple measurements showing light was within a few percent of the established value on Earth when it left objects as much as 12 billion light years from Earth and you come back with less than a thousandth of one percent and declare victory.  Last time I checked, a fraction of a thousandth of a percent is a hellofalot less than "a few" percent.  But, let's go ahead and put your "victory" in perspective.  It's like I owe you 230 billion dollars and offer to pay 20 cents and declare "we're even."  Or, in a game, I'm ahead by 2.3 trillion points and you score 2 points and claim the win.  The only place that scoring system works is in monkeys vs. footballs or "attaboys" vs. "awshits".... and we're not playing that game. 

You're not that dumb.  Obviously you think others are .....

 

2 hours ago, piasan said:

Gravity is another one that you ran from.  In the "center of the universe" discussion, I explained that systems orbit their center of mass.  No exceptions.  It's something I demonstrate for my 8th and 9th graders using a meter stick, Expo marker, and a heavy object.  You were unable to answer the first simple question on the matter...... based on the laws of gravitational motion, how does the Sun (and the rest of the universe) orbit the much LESS massive Earth?  You rolled over and died with some vague claim about electricity and/or magnetism being a "better" explanation than gravity but couldn't take it past that initial (unsupported) assertion.

 

1 hour ago, KillurBluff said:

Nay again piasan i continued with the 'Thought Experiments' and showed 'FROM N.A.S.A.' how the 'Gravity Solution' was NO SUCH A SOLUTION at ALL, Remember???

 

  1. A "thought experiment" does not substitute for "empirical scientific truth" like Newton's laws.
  2. NASA uses the "gravity solution" to navigate spacecraft throughout the solar system (and beyond).
  3. The "Thought Experiment" was nothing more than your attempt at obfuscation.

I still decline to play Blitz's rigged game ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

,,,,_- "I still decline to play Blitz's rigged game" ...

Here is my post for your students.... Just show them this and explain to them why it is a "rigged game" LOL... 

So... Asking for Scientific Evidence to support the Incoherent Fantasy that gets shoved down gullible high school biology students throat that all flora and fauna on Earth share a single common ancestor is a "Scientific Fact" is a "Rigged Game"??? You are a scoundrel and a propagandist  if you dont show this to your students... You should be ASHAMED of yourself.. You arent teaching your students HOW to think, You are teaching them WHAT to think... 

 

=========================

Just WHAT IS the Scientific Evidence that supports the hypothetical (Abiogenesis) hypothesis (Microbe to Man) of Evolution? Please remember that, WISHFUL SPECULATION, UNVERIFIED HYPOTHESIS, HOPEFUL GUESSES AND JUST SO STORIES, will not be allowed in this classroom! AND Evidence for well know phenomena such as Variation, Adaptation, Speciation or De-volution  i.e. Finches beaks, Cave fish going blind, Moth colors, Weak bacteria lacking enzymes targeted by antibiotics, Dog ears, Mutated fruit flies with 2 FATAL extra wings, Bear coats, Dog Ears and Squirrel tails Etc.     Will not be allowed either!!   TIME FOR SOME REAL SCIENCE!!!  ANY VOLUNTEERS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, piasan said:

No, it hasn't.  I have pointed to multiple measurements showing light was within a few percent of the established value on Earth when it left objects as much as 12 billion light years from Earth and you come back with less than a thousandth of one percent and declare victory.  Last time I checked, a fraction of a thousandth of a percent is a hellofalot less than "a few" percent.  But, let's go ahead and put your "victory" in perspective.  It's like I owe you 230 billion dollars and offer to pay 20 cents and declare "we're even."  Or, in a game, I'm ahead by 2.3 trillion points and you score 2 points and claim the win.  The only place that scoring system works is in monkeys vs. footballs or "attaboys" vs. "awshits".... and we're not playing that game. 

You're not that dumb.  Obviously you think others are .....

 

  1. A "thought experiment" does not substitute for "empirical scientific truth" like Newton's laws.
  2. NASA uses the "gravity solution" to navigate spacecraft throughout the solar system (and beyond).
  3. The "Thought Experiment" was nothing more than your attempt at obfuscation.

I still decline to play Blitz's rigged game ......

Mere OBFUSCATIONS piasan, you are delusional sir..

WHAT HAS ANY OF YOUR STATEMENTS Above TO DO with your pro EVOLUTIONARY DELUSION???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blitzking said:

Here is my post for your students.... Just show them this and explain to them why it is a "rigged game" LOL...

So... Asking for Scientific Evidence to support the Incoherent Fantasy that gets shoved down gullible high school biology students throat that all flora and fauna on Earth share a single common ancestor is a "Scientific Fact" is a "Rigged Game"??

It's really simple ..... you are excluding all of the evidence of common ancestry except DNA.

 

1 hour ago, Blitzking said:

You are a scoundrel and a propagandist  if you dont show this to your students... You should be ASHAMED of yourself.

Not in the slightest.  I make it absolutely clear that all I expect of them with regard to evolution is that they know what science says and why science says it.  They don't need to believe a word of it.

 

1 hour ago, Blitzking said:

You arent teaching your students HOW to think, You are teaching them WHAT to think...

The failure to teach students HOW to think is one of the great scandals of the US education system.  I assure you, it's one of my major sore spots.  We should begin teaching these kids logic and problem solving skills in about the 5th grade.

Thank Bush Jr. and "no child left behind."  Schools are held accountable largely for how students perform on standardized tests.  We are also told we shouldn't teach the test.  That's like telling a car salesman his job will depend on how many trucks he sells, but he shouldn't push trucks.  I mean, what planet did that idea come from?  What we end up doing is teaching kids factoids that they memorize and regurgitate back at test time.

One example of how bad it is ......  Last year, I had a "Pre-AP" Physics class.  These are among the best and brightest of our juniors and seniors.  They had trouble with two-step problems.  IOW, if I gave them problems that required they multiply A * B = C they are just fine.  If I give them C + D = E they're still fine.  But, if I give them A, B. and D they can't figure out to use A and B to get C so they can find E.  It was so bad, I spent a number of days giving them logic puzzles as "critical thinking" grades to help them decipher word problems.

One more example.... a few years ago, a parent came to parent-teacher conference looking for my head.  Her son had gotten a "C" on his first test in my 9th grade physical science class and he had NEVER had below an "A" in science.  *My* test was too hard.  The rest of the conversation went like this:

  • Me: The test would probably be too hard if I wrote it.  The class average on the first test I wrote as a teacher was about 30 and I thought it was an easy test.  So, I don't write my tests, I use tests provided by the text book publisher.
  • She:  Can I see the test?
  • Me:  Of course, here's a your son's paper.
  • She: -- looks at test about 5 seconds and says --- I see the problem, this test requires critical thinking and my son has never had to do critical thinking.
  • Me:  Your son is in the 9th grade and has never had to use critical thinking?
  • She:  Yes.
  • Me:  Is he going to college?
  • She:  Absolutely.
  • Me:  Will he need to do critical thinking in college?
  • She: Of course.
  • Me:  Would you like him to start learning now, or do you want to wait until you're paying college tuition?
  • She:  Go for it.

Her son went on to college and became a dentist ... to this day she says he would have never through college without my help.  (Probably more when I had him again as a junior in chemistry.)

2 hours ago, Blitzking said:

Just WHAT IS the Scientific Evidence that supports the hypothetical (Abiogenesis) hypothesis (Microbe to Man) of Evolution?

Two problems with your first sentence ....

  1. I make it absolutely clear at the beginning of the section on evolution that we will NOT discuss abiogenesis because ALL proposals for the origin of life are speculative from a scientific standpoint.
  2. At the same time, I also point out that we will also NOT discuss human evolution.

For the rest of your rant, the process is called "inference" .... and yes, it is error prone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, piasan said:

The short answer is that I'm not going to play a game rigged by Blitz any more than I was willing to play one rigged by Dr. Walt Brown when I first joined this list. 

Do you want to explain that turd you tossed out on the table?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, piasan said:

The short answer is that I'm not going to play a game rigged by Blitz any more than I was willing to play one rigged by Dr. Walt Brown when I first joined this list. 

1 hour ago, indydave said:

Do you want to explain that turd you tossed out on the table?

 

The shortest answer is Brown's idea of a "level" playing field is where one participant can be "disqualified" but not the other. 

There was a much more thorough discussion of that matter in the opening pages of the "Fire and Brimstone from Brown" topic.  I really don't want to divert this one....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, piasan said:

The shortest answer is Brown's idea of a "level" playing field is where one participant can be "disqualified" but not the other. 

There was a much more thorough discussion of that matter in the opening pages of the "Fire and Brimstone from Brown" topic.  I really don't want to divert this one....

" I make it absolutely clear that all I expect of them with regard to evolution is that they know what science says and why science says it.  They don't need to believe a word of it."

 

Absolute hogwash. "Science' doesn't "SAY" ANYTHING!!  You teach them the propagandized state run dishonest version that is printed in the textbooks where leading or classic question begging tactics are utilized, tricks of persuasion are strategically employed, guesses and speculation are presented as scientific evidence, where actual evidence against evolution is ignored or omitted completely, where variation and adaptation are duplicitously provided as examples of "evolution", Where students are lied to and told that "micro" evolution plus "deep time" leads to "macro evolution and if you go back far enough, all flora and fauna on Earth share a single common ancestor that somehow emerged from dead matter... You HIDE from them any and all material that exposes the Fairytale of Evolutionism for the academic FRAUD that it is... You shield them from websites like this one instead of ENCOURAGING THEM to seek the truth for themselves instead of just swallowing the state run religion of Secular Humanism that YOU shove down their throats..    You HIDE the truth from them and DONT let them know that you REPEATEDLY DODGE requests to provide scientific evidence to support the idiotic myth that all flora and fauna share a single common ancestor....  Truly despicable behaviour .. ESPECIALLY from someone who knows better..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, KillurBluff said:

 

 

 

:rotfl3:Not so piasan, the 'Criteria' ONLY ALLOWS for 100% EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC PROOFS, for the Delusional aspirations of its postulates to present their supposed "Closed Case" sir....

But this IS of course exactly why we will NEVER witness any such so-called EVIDENCE For it, because quote; WISHFUL SPECULATION, UNVERIFIED HYPOTHESIS, HOPEFUL GUESSES AND JUST SO STORIES ARE NOT ALLOWED....

So just as stated, that ONLY IF; "Evolution Was A Fact Of SCIENCE", and just as sure as ''Gravity" THEN COME now and PLEAD the EMPIRICAL case that all the Evolutionary Postulates suppose exist...

Surely if you are found 'Lacked' in a concise presentation i would assume the likes of Richard Dawkins, Michio KaKu, Lawrence Krauss, Niel deGrasse Tyson etc. etc. etc., not to exclude wibble, Goku, Perpetual Student, Siili,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,....

 

Yes.. THIS is the criteria that evolutionists object to... LOL..

because quote; WISHFUL SPECULATION, UNVERIFIED HYPOTHESIS, HOPEFUL GUESSES AND JUST SO STORIES ARE NOT ALLOWED....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Blitzking said:

You HIDE from them any and all material that exposes the Fairytale of Evolutionism for the academic FRAUD that it is.

I wonder if Pi will admit this is true. If he were to include arguments against evolution as well as arguments for evolution in his class, I would expect that there would be a parent who complains and he would have to stop it or lose his job. Is that right pi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, indydave said:

I wonder if Pi will admit this is true. If he were to include arguments against evolution as well as arguments for evolution in his class, I would expect that there would be a parent who complains and he would have to stop it or lose his job. Is that right pi?

I think you have that backwards.   Teachers are far more likely to be threatened for teaching evolution than not.

At the start of my second year of teaching science, I was escorted to the superintendent's office by the principal.  The superintendent said: "If you want to be back next year, you will stop teaching that evolution crap."  (Those were the exact words.)  A poll about the same time by the National Science Teacher's Association indicated about a third of all teacher won't even teach evolution due to their jobs being threatened.

That created a "Catch-22" in which I was required to teach state standards that said: "The diversity of life is the result of small changes over time." but I was instructed to NOT teach to those standards.  I handled it by giving a disclaimer speech at the start of material that conflicts with a literal Genesis in all my classes.  I guess it worked because I have heard no complaints since then and I worked there for another three years.

There was one student who approached me and said her minister would like to debate evolution with me.  I told her that I would be happy to debate her minister about evolution, but I will NOT argue against God.  I never heard another word, so I suspect her minister wanted to argue atheism rather than evolution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2019 at 3:43 AM, Blitzking said:

Just WHAT IS the Scientific Evidence that supports the hypothetical (Abiogenesis) hypothesis (Microbe to Man) of Evolution?

there is ZERO evidence to support the molecules to man scenario.

in my opinion, the fact that all life is based on DNA is pretty strong evidence of common descent.

of course, it's possible that DNA based life is the only scenario possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Blitzking said:

You HIDE from them any and all material that exposes the Fairytale of Evolutionism for the academic FRAUD that it is..

there is more than enough guilt to spread around with this one, and teachers are (mostly) caught up in the middle of it all.

science is still unsure how complexity arises, but ultra darwinists still hold dear mutation and natural selection.

as a matter of fact a large number of evolutionary changes can only be explained if natural selection is absent.

and that's not all, by a long shot.

darwinism AKA the modern synthesis is plain wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, what if said:

there is ZERO evidence to support the molecules to man scenario.

in my opinion, the fact that all life is based on DNA is pretty strong evidence of common descent.

of course, it's possible that DNA based life is the only scenario possible.

;)Surely if we could have any chance whatsoever to metabolize anything then DNA based life is the only scenario possible. ...

Hence Gods Design is 'Irrefutable'...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, what if said:

there is ZERO evidence to support the molecules to man scenario.

in my opinion, the fact that all life is based on DNA is pretty strong evidence of common descent.

of course, it's possible that DNA based life is the only scenario possible.

"There is ZERO evidence to support the molecules to man scenario."

"in my opinion, the fact that all life is based on DNA is pretty strong evidence of common descent."

 

I hate to break the bad news to you, BUT THEY ARE BOTH THE SAME EXACT THING!!!  

Yes... "Common descent" AND "molecules to man" ARE IDENTICAL!!!  They are the exact same dog but only with different fleas....

So how can you say that there is ZERO evidence for one and "Pretty Strong Evidence" for the other????  

If you are still confused, I would be glad to help...Let me know..

 

"DARWIN MADE IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN INTELLECTUALLY FULFILLED ATHEIST" 

RICHARD DAWKINS 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, piasan said:

think you have that backwards.   Teachers are far more likely to be threatened for teaching evolution than not.

At the start of my second year of teaching science, I was escorted to the superintendent's office by the principal.  The superintendent said: "If you want to be back next year, you will stop teaching that evolution crap."  

Good for him! Maybe Oklahoma is quite a bit different. I was making my statement regarding what MOST public schools would do and I think it is probably correct. Would you disagree? Seems like I read somewhere that there was a court case where some school system wanted to have both pro and con taught and it was ruled to be unconstitutional. And I think it was not teaching anything about a Creator but it was only pointing out arguments that go against the idea of evolution. That was verboten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, piasan said:

At the start of my second year of teaching science, I was escorted to the superintendent's office by the principal.  The superintendent said: "If you want to be back next year, you will stop teaching that evolution crap."  (Those were the exact words.) 

12 hours ago, indydave said:

Good for him! Maybe Oklahoma is quite a bit different. I was making my statement regarding what MOST public schools would do and I think it is probably correct. Would you disagree? Seems like I read somewhere that there was a court case where some school system wanted to have both pro and con taught and it was ruled to be unconstitutional. And I think it was not teaching anything about a Creator but it was only pointing out arguments that go against the idea of evolution. That was verboten.

 

Small town rural Oklahoma is very different.  They pretty much ignore all of the court rulings regarding religious expression and religion in the classroom.

They probably didn't push me anymore because I let it be known (the grapevine in small towns can be very useful) that I had read the state standard and would teach to that standard regardless of what they had to say about it.  Between that and my clear statement that student's beliefs would have no impact on their grade as long as they could describe the science in class probably convinced the administration it wasn't worth the fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Our Terms