Replies

[[And please respect your audience enough to post both proper spelling and grammar. You reveal your ignorance in the large things by demonstrating your ignorance in the small things.]]

Lol- Care to compare intelligence test results? Beign too tired to give a crap about spell-checking, and corercting neurological mistakes while typing has nothign to do with intelligence- but you keep analy obsessing over spelling as though it is some sort of victory for your side- Shallowness, and lack of amunition for arguments is revealed on your part

[[Your attempts to climb the intellectual mountains of science are analogous to the linguists who has noted that all languages across the galaxy have a “jin-n-tonix” construct and do not buttress anything other than your circular references.]]

You still can NOT show how it’s possible for nature to violate several key scientific principles eh? If all you’’ve got for arguments are ad hominem attacks, then whatever- again- you just reveal how shallow your preferred hypothesis really is

[[Nature isn’t “magical” — and your assertion (it does not even rise to contention) that because you don’t understand simple processes such as stochasticism, somehow millions of real scientists analyzing and interpreting billions of artifacts across hundreds of years have been toiling in fields of error doesn’t even meet the laugh test.]]

Again- the argument is completely goign over your head apparently- Nature, as described by the mythical process of Macroevolution, certainly MUST BE magical in order to violate the very scientific principles that bind it- I’ll ask again- Show us evidnece that shows nature can violate chemical, biological, and natural processes while beating out mathematical probability impossibilities- show it happening just once- then please do explain to hte rest of us how it could have violated it trillions of times, leaving behind NO traces of evidnece (apparently, your magical nature did so ‘in hte past sometime’ but compeltely stopped violating scientific principles ‘in hte past after evolution was all done supernaturally creating all the myriad billions of species)

[[somehow millions of real scientists analyzing and interpreting billions of artifacts across hundreds of years have been toiling in fields of error doesn’t even meet the laugh test.]]

Sure it does- it’s quite laughable when someoen is so maried to an a priori agenda that they IGNORE the scientific impossibilities facign hteir hypothesis and can’t cede the facts and keep on insisting ‘nature did it’ despite evidence to the contrary- quite laughable indeed (of course htose who are married to the hypothesis, and hwo’s reputations are on the line for havign invested so much time and effort into a failed religious beleif about macroevolution don’t think it’s so funny eating crow- of course they are goign to keep on- hoping agaisnt all hope that they’ll be proven right- but after 150 years of intense discovery, and billions of dollars spent, you’d think they’d get hte message and try to save face by at least ceding the possibility that they were wrong- but nope- steadfast right to the end- Down with hte ship to the bottom of the sea! (it’s called cuttign off your nose to spite your face- Throwing a rope to a drowning man- only to have him stubbornly refuse help and swim away to deeper water- The numbers game doesn’t work here I’m afraid- and a fair amount of scientists HAVE realized (and even publically stated) that the process of Macroevolution is chemically, biologically and mathematically impossible and that it natural laws- but per usual- they have hteir characters attacked by the drowning men who are so wedded to their hypothesis that they can’t see the forrest for the trees.)

Sign the List

Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine. Signers must also agree with the following statement:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/sign_the_list.php

Woopsie- many ARE turning away, or at least ceding that the natural process of Macroevolution does NOT explain how l ife got here

“Professor Colin Reeves
Dept of Mathematical Sciences
Coventry University

Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection’s ability to create complex biological systems - and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour”

“Edward Peltzer, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.”

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/

On and on it goes- but of course all of htese more than 700 scientists must not be ‘real scientists or prophesors and specialists in their fields’ because they find that the mechanisms behind Macroevolution can NOT explain how life got here, right? They must all have a ‘religious agenda’ and just want to ‘sneak relgion and creationism into hte classroom, right? Lol Yeah right!