Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

This is a jumble of ill-considered opinion, I'll just make a couple of general comments.1. We love to be questioned, it's the entire purpose of the place. But if you do it in a dumb and garbled way, you'll get told that your questioning is dumb and garbled.2. We would prefer that if you open a thread that you stick around to defend what you say, but we understand that life gets in the way and sometimes that's not possible. But what you don't then do is open another thread instead.3. You really need to get yourself straight about this evolution=atheism stuff. It's not just wrong, it's a lie. There are a few atheists here but there are more believers. With one or two exceptions all accept the ToE. Across the Western world believers are in the majority and most scientists are believers of some sort or another. With very, very few exceptions all scientists accept the ToE regadless of their religious or other views. You've been told a lie, please don't repeat it.The ToE is just another branch of science it has nothing to do with religion. It doesn't care what people believe, it simply reports what's observed. You saw that from Darwin himself.Those that discovered that the earth was very old 200 years ago were Christians that set out to find evidence that it was young to verify the bible stories. They were forced to accept the opposite - because like Darwin, they followed the evidence.Please do the same.

Listen dickhead, if you don't do anything else, learn that evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism.The vast, overwhelming majority of those that accept evolution are not atheists. The overwhelming majority of scientists that work in the field are not atheists. Darwin himself was a Christian. Even the Catholic church accepts evolution as fact.Get your head into the right place and you may be able to sustain a rational argument, blather on like you do here, talking nonsense, and you've lost any argument you want to make before you start..Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

One of the promises you made to us (and immediately broke) was that you'd present your arguments to the highest scientific standard. A very basic of this is to to properly reference your source.So you'll see this a lot...Source please

I think what we're witnessing here is evidence of absense.

It's quite interesting how far creatists have come over the last couple of centuries.When Darwin was working on the problem of how species arose the widespread belief was that species were immutable, that god created all the living things on earth as they are seen today; unchangeable and unchanging, his perfect creation.Now even the most ardent YEC allows for divergence within what they call kinds from leaving the ark and the ID movement accepts evolution from simple to complex but claim that the development of species is directed by god.It's an enormous volte-face that would have their Christian predecessors crying heresy and demanding burning at the stake.They're being backed into a tight corner which is already pretty full of other flat earth, tin hat science deniers. As even more discoveries will be found, that corner is going to get even smaller and even wilder claims will be made. I'd love to be around in another 100 years to see what becomes of them.

So no attempt to take on the points made then? Creationists accept that life is no longer immutable and evolution happens. Heresy! ID was stillborn years ago. I remember being really excited about it but when I went to study it, it fell apart almost immediately. Just more religiously motivated nonsense - stronger? It's been dead for years.As for Darwinian explanations, it seems that creationists are keener on them than scientists. He was 150 years ago, before the discovery of the gene. I suppose it's something about their desire to find absolute truth in an ancient book. Science isn't like that Wookie - it moves on. We know there's more to evolution that Darwin could possibly imagine. We also know that it doesn't require an invisible, enevidenced and unnecessary intervention to work. Who do you think you're fooling? Is it yourself?

I would also offer the pancreatic cancer which is currently killing my brother-in-law. The only respect that that could be considered good design is if the designer was a psychpathic torturer - in which case it's exquisite.

Biology has been able to explain how organic life evolved on earth and geology astrophysics explains how inorganic material formed - and still forms - non-living structure. All are natural processes.
We still do not know how life began, that's work in progress.I can look at a chair and say that it looks like someone made it - because I have experience of things that are made and things that occur naturally. I don't need to see the carpenter and get his evidence because I know how this all works - i've seen it and done it myself. But for non made-made things that have natural explanations for their existence, I really need you to produce this designer otherwise there's a very big and important piece of the explanation missing. But you can't do this.Even worse, I know, and you know and everybody involved knows, that this whole thing is religious. You are not standing back objectively and saying 'I don't know who or what the designer is', you're saying goddidit, to each other but not to us. Claiming it's neutral is bullshit and harms whatever weak arguments you have because it shows that you are dishonest and have a not well hidden agenda that is non-scientific.Neither of those things would matter if you could actually prove any of your claims - facts are fact no matter what motivates their discovery. But the sad facts are that you don't have any facts; everything you claim has been debunked. It doesn't stand up. You are unable to produce any real evidence. You even mention the bloody flagella for god's sake; something that has been shown not to be IC because all the parts necessary for it are available to it. I mean really??You need to do a lot better than this and start answering questions properly, how do you know that something is designed if we have no experience or knowledge of the designer and we have natural explanations for what we see? Why is this outside influence necessary and why can't I see anything that can't be explained by a process that is already understood?You're not talking to the congregation now, we've all seen these arguments before and there are some here with real scientific knowledge, bluffing isn't going to work.

Yup. Annoying I suppose but ... I do if they expect me to take any notice of their ideas. It's a simple fact that they say design but can't prove it by showing a designer. And sadly simply saying it's designed is not convincing anyone who isn't already a creationist - because we have natural processes that 'create' these things.Without presenting the designer, all your friend can do is fabricate reasons why the natural processes that we have identified can't do some of the things that we say they do. They have been unable to show this. And in most cases they're just arguments from ignorance. I don't have to trot out statistics do I? You can test it empirically yourself right now. Pray and prove me wrong. Prayer hs never worked for you has it. It's always best to go fishing, but if you want to convince anyone of any argument, you're going to have to produce some hard facts, not waffle.

Except help you with your problems and make this place happy and healthy for everyone it seems. Well there's your paradox again. He can do everything, but not that. God meet meatloaf.

Mankind has never seen anything like this bundle of twigs before. But it's made out of twigs and it's in a tree so obviously the tree made it. Exactly how is a mystery; just like the tree. Let's worship the tree, just in case.It sure looks like lightening is designed, somebody up there is bloody angry, let's call him Zeus (Greek), Thor (Norse), Perun (Slavic), Indra (Hindu), Shago (Yaroba), Santeria (Africa), Candomble (Brazil).Wow, look at those crystals, they're all slightly different but they all have the same basic geometry. Somebody had to have real intelligence and a plan to make those.Category error my arse. Unless we know what design looks like we can not infer a designer. If we study your nest on anything but a superficial level we can work out what it is and what it does, because we can see what made it and why. To leap to the assumption that the tree (or god) did it is the grievous error.Like your nest, we have all the evidence we need to demonstrate that a designer is not necessary for life and rock formations.So produce your designer and prove us wrong.

Atheists are the minority group in science as well as society. Scientists and Belief | Pew Research CenterYou fundamentalist nut jobs need to look to find a new excuse for being wrong.

Atheists tend to be rational so that's unlikely, but whatever the proportion, your comment is irrelevant.Scientists are overwhelmingly also believers, I'm afraid you can't blame scientific findings on atheists - well of course you can and you will because you're a bunch of disingenuous fruit loops - but the facts speak for themselves.Atheists are only 17% of scientists and as science progresses by consensus, you're just plain wrong about science and atheism.

You wouldn't know this not being a scientist but science doesn't care what people believe or don't believe, nor does it record their beliefs. The reason is that science is objective, caring only about facts and evidence. Ohm's law applies whatever your belief.But since you ask, here's the first five entries under A from the list of notable atheist scientists in the wiki Scott Aaronson (1981–): American theoretical computer scientist and faculty member in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science department at MIT. His primary area of research is quantum computing and computational complexity theory.[1]Ernst Abbe (1840–1905): German physicist, optometrist, entrepreneur, and social reformer. Together with Otto Schott and Carl Zeiss, he laid the foundation of modern optics. Abbe developed numerous optical instruments. He was a co-owner of Carl Zeiss AG, a German manufacturer of research microscopes, astronomical telescopes, planetariums and other optical systems.[2]Fay Ajzenberg-Selove (1926–2012): American nuclear physicist who was known for her experimental work in nuclear spectroscopy of light elements, and for her annual reviews of the energy levels of light atomic nuclei. She was a recipient of the 2007 National Medal of Science.[3]Jean le Rond d'Alembert (1717–1783): French mathematician, mechanician, physicist, philosopher, and music theorist. He was also co-editor with Denis Diderot of the Encyclopédie.[4][5] Zhores Alferov (1930–2019): Belarusian, Soviet, and Russian physicist who contributed substantially to the creation of modern heterostructure physics and electronics. He is an inventor of the heterotransistor and co-winner (with Herbert Kroemer and Jack Kilby) of the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physics.[6]You can see the full A-Z hereList of atheists in science and technology - Wikipedia

Numbers #6 and #8 in the A category: Hannes Alfvén (1908–1995): Swedish electrical engineer and plasma physicist. He received the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on magnetohydrodynamics (MHD). He is best known for describing the class of MHD waves now known as Alfvén waves.[7][8][9][10] Philip W. Anderson (1923–2020): American physicist. He was one of the recipients of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1977. Anderson has made contributions to the theories of localization, antiferromagnetism and high-temperature superconductivity.[12]Should I go through the entire list for you or you going to continue being a total dickhead? Let me guess...