NephilimFree #fundie

NephilimFree #fundie uk.youtube.com

"If that were even remotely true, then the majority of scientists"

The scientific community has been controlled by evolutionists since the 1050's. They discriminate against anyone putting forth evidence that does not conform to evo fantasy. This is not evidence for evolution, but an argument based upon an appeal of the majority, and in this case, it is incalid.

"Evolution has mountains of evidence"

Not a shred. Science destroys evolutionsim.

90 comments

old comment by a mind far far away

Either you have a time machine, or you are chronologically challenged. Darwin, who was the first to put forth the theory of evolution, was the 19th century. Catholics in the 11th century weren't smart enough to figure that out. And the only reason you think that there is no scientific evidence for evolution is because you are stupid. It's that easy. Nobody with half a brain can deny the scientific evidence for evolution. Which tells me that fundy christians only have about a quarter of a brain, if that. But seriously, you need to get your facts straight if you want to be taken seriously. Keep posting shit like this, and you'll continue to get laughed at.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"The scientific community has been controlled by evolutionists since the 1050's. They discriminate against anyone putting forth evidence that does not conform to evo fantasy. This is not evidence for evolution, but an argument based upon an appeal of the majority, and in this case, it is incalid.

"Evolution has mountains of evidence"

Not a shred. Science destroys evolutionsim."

Words fail me. Not even Jean-Luc Picard can comprehend the amount of FAIL NephilimFree's quote contains:

image

He tried inputting such into the Enterprise's computer. Geordi LaForge had to shut down the LCARS before it self-destructed. And Picard is wise enough to not show it to Data, lest his Positronic Matrix go into meltdown.

"Not a shred. Science destroys evolutionsim."

Just this line alone is enough to give me a headache!

NephilimFree? More like NephilimFAIL, amirite?

old comment by Arts_Myth

@(#843579): Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate[...] In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. [...] These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousands of years.

Ah, the fun to be had with linearity. The sky was dim yesterday evening, but an hour before that it was brighter, and an hour before that it was brighter still. Working backwards, it can be shown that the sky would have been intolerably bright at dawn, and at the time of the previous evening the sun would have been shining with such an intensity that all gas and liquid matter on the planet would have boiled away leaving a charred cinder. Likewise, given the rate at which the sun has been increasing in intensity over the last three hours since dawn, it can be calculated that the same fate should befall the planet by tomorrow night. Since the first scenario is clearly incorrect, and the second scenario is extremely unlikely, it can only be surmised that the sun is actually a complex mass hallucination, facilitated to comfort us as we stumble around in the pitch dark.

Also, two weeks ago I was able to run 100 meters in two minutes. After a week of practice, I ran it in 1:45. Today, I ran it in 1:30. I figure I'll be travelling back through time by mid-January, or at least instantaneously teleport anywhere on Earth.

old comment by Evolutionisalie

Evolution is pure faith

Evolution cannot be observed or experimented; it is therefore not scientific but based on pure faith or imagination. Many notable academics have noted upon this.

Karl Popper: Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.’’

Michael Denton [On the theory of evolution] as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates’ would have us believe.’’

Dr. Fleishmann: The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.’’

L. Harrison Matthews: The theory of evolution forms a faith on which to base our interpretation of nature.’’

old comment by David B.

"Theodosius Dobzhansky: "These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible..."

The bit you missed out (though you wouldn't know since you are merely cutting and pasting someone else's efforts) is "It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation."

The same applies to an apple falling from a tree, it is equally irreversible, unrepeatable and unique. You can't make an apple float up and reattach itself, you can't make that apple fall a second time from the tree as it did the first time. That does not invalidate gravity as a subject for scientific study, since you just adapt your studies to take account of this limitation.

old comment by David B.

"the applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter"

And he continues, "And yet, it is just such impossibility that is demanded by anti-evolutionists when they ask for “proofs” of evolution which they would magnanimously accept as satisfactory." In other words, Dobzhansky is not criticising evolution at all, but anti-evolutionists who demand impossible levels of evidence not out of honest inquiry but because they are sure they won't get it.

Prove you are human, Truthseeker, and the only proof I'll accept is if you shrink yourself back down to a baby, climb back up into your mother's womb and get born again in front of me, because that's the only 'scientific' way to prove you were, right?. Reproduce your reproduction or it is unscientific to consider yourself human on the basic of a unique, unrepeatable event. If you think that's an acceptable requirement for you being granted the rights and citizenship due a human being, I'll concede this point on evolution.

Evolution is perfectly compatible with the scientific method, the real one that is, not the straw man creationists pretend it is when it suits them.

old comment by David B.

"Evolution cannot be observed or experimented; it is therefore not scientific but based on pure faith or imagination. Many notable academics have noted upon this."

Actually it can, and has, been observed in real time, and experiments performed on it. You can find the results most reputable science journals.

"Karl Popper: Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.’’"

You missed out the next bit, which is not surprising when you consider he continues:
"And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that."

So it turns out it is you is the liar. Whodathunk?

old comment by David B.

Popper also changed his mind somewhat:
"When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism. However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry. [...] I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection."
K. Popper, 1978

old comment by NephilimFree

“Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities.” Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), p. 55.

“All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.” William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 184185.

“A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be produced.” Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p. 96.

Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Ipswich, Massachusetts: Gambit, 1971), p. 36.

William J. Tinkle, Heredity (Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1967), pp. 5556.

“... the distinctions of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p. 322.

“Indeed, the isolation and distinctness of different types of organisms and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature have been self-evident for centuries, even to non-biologists.” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 105.

“... the discovery of the Danish scientist W. L. Johannsen that the more or less constant somatic variations upon which Darwin and Wallace had placed their emphasis in species change cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of indefinite departure.’ ” Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s Century (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1958), p. 227.

“The awesome morphological complexity of organisms such as vertebrates that have far fewer individuals on which selection can act therefore remains somewhat puzzling (for me at least), despite the geological time scales available ...” Peter R. Sheldon, “Complexity Still Running,” Nature, Vol. 350, 14 March 1991, p. 104.

Bland J. Finlay, “Global Dispersal of Free-Living Microbial Eukaryote Species,” Science, Vol. 296, 10 May 2002, pp. 10611063.

NephilimFree #fundie uk.youtube.com

90 comments

Confused?