That's pretty funny coming from the guy who has himself made such a career out of making outrageous statements and then dodging all attempts to get him to back them up.
Or have you so soon forgotten:
[Used with permission of the original author]Gore3000's FABNAQ's
(Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions)
These questions have been dodged [6] times so farScience is very much aware that evolution is total nonsense, that is why it keeps refuting it.
Amazing claim, let's see if you can substantiate it:
In fact it is totally unbelievable that anyone would call evolution science in this day and age.
You mean, other than those countless thousands of scientists who work with it and research it all the time?
You make a lot of unsupported claims, son, let's see if you know how to support them:
1. The disproof of Darwin's racist claim that the brachyocephalic index showed what races were superior and which were inferior.
Troll Challenge #1: I've already challenged you to document this ad hominem claim. I already pointed out it was contrary to all I've read that Darwin has written about race (i.e., he considered them intellectual and moral equals; an amazingly fair-minded belief for his era.) You failed to even attempt document it. Do so now -- QUOTE Darwin and cite the source.
Troll Challenge #2: Document that whatever Darwin may have actually said on the matter has been "disproven".
NOTE:
For this and subsequent challenges, "document" does not just mean "declare it over and over again" as is your usual mode of "proof". It does not mean "quote other creationists". It does not mean "cut-and-paste semi-relevant website pages that happen to talk about the subject at hand and then declare that this proves your point through sheer volume". In short, none of your usual game-playing of "the conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader, and if you don't reach my conclusion you're an idiot." None of those are sufficient for your *specific* claims that "SCIENCE...KEEPS REFUTING" evolution and "SCIENCE is very much aware that evolution is total nonsense". So to document your amazing claims, you must quote, or provide specific citations for, MAINSTREAM SCIENCE publications which *specifically* declare to have contradicted, refuted, contradicted, or proven wrong the point you claim has "refuted" evolution via "science". For surely, if "science keeps refuting" evolution, someone in science would have mentioned it somewhere. Lord knows scientists aren't shy about pointing out when they've debunked something.In short, you must quote/cite an actual science source which AGREES WITH YOUR CONCLUSION in each case and FLAT OUT SAYS SO. Not just "could be used to argue that conclusion" if you squint at it just right, you must actually find where science SAYS WHAT YOU SAY IT DOES, with no need for "interpretation" or "line of reasoning" on your part.
You say that "Science is very much aware that evolution is total nonsense", so all you have to do is *quote* science actually SAYING the things you say it does. Should be easy -- if you're not a lying swine.
While some may dismiss this as a minutae, it is a strong refutation of evolution because it shows that there has been no 'evolution' in the human species and according to evolutionists evolution is always going on.
Troll Challenge #3: Over what timespan has your alleged "no change" occurred?
Troll Challenge #4: Document (*see above*) that it hasn't.
Troll Challenge #5: Document (*ditto*) that "according to evolutionists" there would *have* be a change of the specified type over the specified time period if evolution were true.
2. Mendelian genetics showed that the transfer of new traits was very difficult if not impossible.
Troll Challenge #6: Document this insane claim. And since you have a short memory, I will again point out that you must DOCUMENT this by citing an actual scientific source which declares it to be "very difficult if not impossible" -- your own babbling, hand-waving arguments don't count. You're not allowed to try to prove your amazing assertion, you must *document* that *SCIENCE* flat-out says so, since you claimed that it did.
Indeed because a new trait or mutation is not in the gene pool of other individuals, it has an almost impossible chance of survival.
Troll Challenge #7: Document, please. And since I remember your failures in our earlier discussion of genetic drift, I must remind you that 1-in-a-thousand, or even 1-in-a-million, is *NOT* "almost impossible". Nor do your misconceptions bother to address the selection of favorable new traits, which have a far higher success rate.
2a. Mendelian genetics also showed the concept of alleles - duplicate genes in every organism which performed the same function but a bit differently. This allows the adaptation of a species to the environment without the need to wait for a chance mutation to occur. It shows that transformation of organisms is not necessary for survival.
Troll Challenge #8: Explain how the (obvious) fact that organisms can "survive" without evolution in any way supports your thesis that "science keeps refuting evolution". Oh, don't bother -- you can't. You're just being foolishly irrelevant here and even you must realize that.
3. DNA - a Nobel Prize winning discovery - showed the utter complexity of the cells in every organism. It laid to rest forever the concept that just a little mutation could transform an organism or a species.
Troll Challenge #9: Document (again, via quoting an actual scientific source which SPECIFICALLY AGREES with your CONCLUSION here) that you're not just making a wild leap from "it's complicated" to "it's impossible".
Troll Challenge #10: Document where evolutionists have ever said that "*A* little mutation" (i.e., singular) could "transform" an organism or species.
Troll Challenge #11: While you're at it, define "transform" in a way that doesn't make your statement trivially false or tautologically true.
4. Genome Project - showed the utter interrelatedness of every single gene, cell, part of the body.
Troll Challenge #12: Document that twaddle. Make sure your source speaks of the "utter interrelatedness" of "every single gene".
It has shown that it is impossible for any new trait to evolve by chance occurrence (or at random, or without design or whatever you wish to call how evolutionary changes to the genome are supposed to occur according to evolution).
Troll Challenge #13: Document where "it has shown" this. Again, you must find a scientific source which specifically agrees with your *conclusion*, not merely one that you can wave around and say, "this is supporting evidence, my conclusion is therefore inescapable, can't you see that?"
For any change, for any transformation to occur, there would need to be the coevolution of the new trait together with a complete support system to make it work.
Troll Challenge #14: And "science" agrees with you on this point where, exactly? Document it. Make sure it's talking specifically about "ANY change, ANY transformation".
This of course is totally ludicrous, especially in view of 2 and 3 above.
I agree your descriptions are ludicrous.
5. discovery of gene control - showed forever that the arrogant (and moronic) evolutionist theory that 95% of DNA was just there doing nothing except to give proof of evolution was utter bunk.
Troll Challenge #15: Documentation, please.
Science showed that it is that very DNA which evolutionists called 'junk" which is what controls the actions of genes and many other processes in the organism.
Troll Challenge #16: All of it? Document where science "shows" this.
[Update: This is the one challenge that Gore3000 actually attempted a response to. Amusingly enough, his linked source material actually VERIFIED THE SCIENTIFIC VIEW THAT HE WAS TRYING TO DISCREDIT. Hmm, speaking of people posting "things they have not themselves read"...]
So as you can see, we are very lucky that scientists ignore evolution.
Troll Challenge #17: Document that this is the case. I'll accept a quote from any peer-reviewed publication in an accepted science journal.
Otherwise, biology would still be stuck in the dark Darwinian ages.
Someone's sure in the dark here, but it's not us.
Time for you to document your assertions, or withdraw them. Time for you to demonstrate that you have any idea what in the hell you're talking about when you make claims about what "science" shows.
[End of FABNAQ]
That one is real easy. The Cambrian explosion drove Gould and Eldredge out of Darwinian evolution, science showed that the fossil record disproves evolution. In addition, Mendelian genetics disproved Darwin's moronic 'melding' of parental traits. Science has also disproven Darwin's racist brachocephallic index and his racist claims about inferior races. Most recently science has disproved the totally arrogant and moronic claim that 95% of human DNA was junk. Science has shown that it is the DNA which is not in the genes which is the real engine that makes organisms work.
Now after you refute the above, and the other posts I have made which all the evolutionists here have carefully avoided addressing (except donh who keeps skirting the points made), then we can go on to the other points you think are outrageous. However, in the meantime, you and others can look at Evidence Disproving Evolution where you will find ample proof of many of what you call 'outrageous' statements.