Replies

I am not a scientist, I don't even play one on TV.

I have never claimed to be a scientist, I know enough though to know that if evolution is TRULY scientifically refuted, then it would NOT be a well founded and well respected theory.

G3K continues with his strawman arguments, and you claim that since I am NOT a scientist that I have no right to an opinion based on science.

Isn't that special?

And materialistic faith? Have never heard of that religion, and I have no faith in science. Science is based on facts and conclusions based on those facts and evidence. There is NO faith about it.

If the best scientists in the world cannot come up with a better theory then the theory of evolution, I know for a fact that G3K and others of his ilk will not have a snowballs chance in hell at it either, because it is OBVIOUS that they are most definitely NOT the best minds in science.

I look at their posts and have to laugh, because it is ALL based on the SAME nonscientific nonstarter. The hand of god or the intelligent Designer, NEITHER of which is science.

If you want to debate religion, then start a religious thread, but to try to say that evolution is impossible BASED on a religious theory is ridiculous, and of course a nonstarter.

Or haven't you been paying attention?

I know enough though to know that if evolution is TRULY scientifically refuted, then it would NOT be a well founded and well respected theory.

You don't know squat.

At the core of your appalling ignorance is your silly belief that scientists are wholly objective and rational, somehow parahuman, living in spheres of pure passionless thought beyond the stain of personal bias and grubby venality. Well, maybe not all scientists, but at least the members of the whitefrocked unholy priesthood that you worship are.

Scientists (and their know-nothing sycophants and toadies such as yourself) who worship at altar of today's materialist "facts" are absolutely no different from the alchemists of medieval period. New platoons of scientists are constantly churning new "facts" that upset the settled order of "facts" which the old order refuses to let go.

How does the old order respond? With wails and howls and belittling the new order (e.g., the neodarwinists who pooh-poohed Gould and his theory of punctuated equilibrium; the ranks of classical Newtonian mechanists who scorned and launched ad hominem attacks at the first whisper that quantum mechanics was unknitting their clockwork universe; the physcists who were appalled at the slamdunk results of the COBE research that proved the universe had a beginning not so very long ago, which upset their settled faith that the universe has been around for multiple trillions of years, long enough to allow for the magic of Darwinism to pull the full range of amino acids out of its brainless, aimless, pointless hat).

But mostly the established order responds by steadfast denial, and by ridiculing the messenager and attempting to shun him into obscurity. I'll give you just one example. His name was Marcel Schutzenburger and he was quite possibly the greatest combinatorialist of the latter half of the 20th Century. Unlike the gadlfly self-important Darwinists in the biological sciences, whose grasp and understanding of mathematics is only sufficient to satisfy the minimum academic requirements of their speciality, Schutzenburger lived and breathed mathematics of the highest order every day of his professional life. Schutzenburger was one of the first pure scientists to crunch the numbers. The numbers showed that the notion that random and aimless natural processes could spark the genesis of life was wholly untenable, beyond absurd, given the paltry 10 to 20 billion years for it to take place. How did the settled order respond? By shouting him down--certainly not by challenging the mathematics. How could they challenge the math? They were as ignorant on the mathematics as you are on cellular biology.

Schutzenburger died a few years back. His hard-number challenge to the priesthood of the unholy Order of Darwin yet lives, stands unmet and unacknowledged outside the little true believer cublicle they have sequestered themselves within.

Denial is not a scientific defense, but a human defense. Scientists use it with the same zeal as anyone else.