S E E D E D C O N T E N T 
A duck dressed as a scientist is still a duck. And a pseudoscientific theory dressed up like real science is still pseudoscience. That just leaves the question: is evolution pseudoscience? Fortunately, that’s an easy question to answer: yes. And even better, you don’t need to be a scientist to recognize a pseudoscience, just as you don’t need to be a doctor to recognize the difference between a human and a non-human like a duck. Anyone who knows what a “human” and a “duck” is can easily discern the difference. And anyone who knows what “science” and “pseudoscience” is will likewise easily discern the difference.
As you are probably already aware, a favored tactic of proponents of evolution is to label both Creation and Intelligent Design disciplines as “pseudosciences.” The irony of course being that it is a trivial matter to demonstrate that Darwinian goo-to-you evolution is the epitome of a pseudoscience. Yet regardless of how clear the evidence is, you will never, ever get an evolutionist to acknowledge that Darwinian molecules-to-man evolution is a pseudoscience. So in this article we’ll first take a look at how Darwinian evolution fits the definition of a pseudoscience perfectly; then press on to demonstrate how evolution breaks a number of the known laws of science further proving it to be pseudoscience in spite of their protestations that “it’s science.”
According to the bastion of popular secular knowledge known as Wikipedia, a pseudoscience is:
“…a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.”[ 1 ]
So one cannot know whether something is a pseudoscience until one first understands the scientific method. Again, according to Wikipedia, the scientific method is:
“a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as “a method or
procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”[ 2 ]
Evolution fits the definition of a pseudoscience
Evolution fits every criteria necessary to be identified as a pseudoscience:
Fits defintion – 1. “Presented as Scientific”
The claim that evolution is “presented as scientific” is so ubiquitous, a defense of that statement is not at all necessary. But but to leave no stone un-turned, I offer this page from the National Academy of Science that states evolution is both science theory and fact.[ 3 ]
Fits definition – 2. “But which does not adhere to the scientific method”
The definition of the scientific process is listed above. Below is a nice diagram of the process:
Though one is sufficient, we’ll look at two places in the process where evolution fails to follow the scientific method: A. (Unable to) Make Observations; and B. (Unable to) Develop Testable Predictions
Fails Scientific Method A. (Unable to) “Make Observations”
Goo-to-you evolution fails the very first step in the process, because it cannot be observed:
1) No one has ever observed life come from non-living molecules, cells or animals. Life always comes from life, without exception. Yet this belief (abiogenesis – which we’ll return to later) is a core belief of evolutionists. Evolutionists must believe this since there simply is no other alternative once you rule out the living God as the source of all life.
And what do they substitute for observation? Bad reasoning:
The undeniable fact is that non-living materials must have formed into living materials at least once. If not through spontaneous generation, then how? [ 4 ]
Documentary: How Life began
This is common evolutionist reasoning, but it is totally flawed. It’s like coming home and finding a body dead apparently from gunshot wounds, a smoking gun, and only your spouse and the family goldfish in the room – and there is gun powder residue on your spouse’s hand. And from this you conclude the goldfish must have done it because you know your spouse couldn’t have done it. Never mind it is impossible for your goldfish to have fired the gun, the idea of your spouse doing it is so repellent, you simply can’t even seriously consider the possibility. So it is with evolutionists and God – the idea of God creating all life on earth is so repellent to evolutionists, they won’t even consider it, and prefer instead to believe in the fantasy that processes that are known to be incapable of creating life, created life.
2) No one has ever observed the evolution of one type of animal to another type of animal. The change in finch beaks that Darwin observed in the Galapagos, for example, was not evolution from one kind to another. It was natural selection in operation. There’s a more current example: Elephant tusks are getting smaller. Why? Because poachers are killing elephants with the bigger tusks leaving the ones with the smaller tusks to breed and reproduce.[ 5 ] So the overall effect is a population of elephants with smaller tusks. But the finches are still finches; and the elephants are still elephants, so this is not goo-to-you evolution. This is natural selection at work (well in the elephant’s case it’s human selection), and as I’ve pointed out before , natural selection is not synonymous with evolution.
Fails Scientific Method B . (Unable to) “Develop Testable Predictions”
Honest evolutionists acknowledge the inability for evolution to meet the scientific requirement of being predictive in a manner that is testable:
“The theory is inadequate because it is not predictive. It explains what has evolved, but not what will. There are too many possible courses evolution can take.”[ 6 ]
Professor Armand Marie Leroi
Imperial College, London
How true – too many paths – leaving room for plenty of stories. So while they can’t make a scientific prediction, they can indulge their wild flights of fancy. So if you’ve got a animal and you’re looking for their origin, evolutionists have a story for you. Based on two populations of fish in two separate lakes that look similar, Prof. Leroi “hopes” evolutionists can make predictions in the future[ 7 ]. Like other evolutionary hopes and dreams this one will remain unfulfilled since evolution of the type I’m discussing is impossible.
Fits Definition 3. (Fails to meet) The norms of scientific research.
This is a broad topic, and cannot be covered in any detail here. But a recurring area of concern here that should never happen in research is the fabrication or falsification of data. Not only is it unethical as was universally agreed in a recent survey[ 8 ], and tends to make evolution look like the pseudoscience that it is; but more importantly if evolution is so obvious, and there is so much evidence for it, why has there been, and continues to be so much fraud, fabrication and falsification of data in attempts to prove it true? To see some examples of the frauds, just search thecreationclub.com for “Frauds of Evolution.”
So there you have it. Evolution clearly meets the definition of a pseudoscience. And you know the old saying – if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. And so it is with evolution. It may be dressed up as science, but it’s really pseudoscience. But the above demonstration that evolution fits the definition of a pseudoscience to a T is really just an introduction to what I believe the stronger evidence is that demonstrates it’s a pseudoscience: evolution is a pseudoscience because it breaks the known laws of science.
Pseudosciences break known laws of science
In an article titled Is Evolution Pseudoscience Mark Johansen, a CMI author considers this proposition and goes through a 10 point list from the Skeptics Dictionary that identifies pseudosciences and shows how evolution meets 9 of the 10 criteria. Item number 9 is of particular interest:
“Some pseudoscientific theories … contradict known scientific laws and use ad hoc hypotheses to explain their belief.”[ 9 ]
Evolutionists are fond of calling evolution “science” and “fact” but real science does not contradict the established laws of science. With evolution breaking so many laws of science, you can call evolution pseudoscience, or religion. But what you can’t call it, is science. It fits neither the definition of science, nor the method of science (as shown above0, nor follows the laws of science (as shown below). So without further ado, some of the many laws of science that evolution breaks.
1. Evolution breaks the law of Biogenesis.
The law of biogenesis states that life comes only from life. That is all that has ever been observed. Life from Non-living things has never been observed. The idea of “spontaneous generation” was decisively destroyed in the 19th century with Louis Pasteur’s swan necked flask experiment. But in the 19th century, the idea of spontaneous generation concerned mice coming from dirty rags and wheat instead of the current chemical evolution variety of life coming from replicating molecules. With that as the case, evolutionists think they’ve distanced themselves from the concept. In fact popular Cosmos host Neil deGrasse Tyson pokes fun at the concept and the foolishness of spontaneous generation:
“I always liked the spontaneous generation concept – some dirty rags, some wheat, look the other way and mice crawl out. That’s kind of fun. I don’t know why that concept hung on for so long. Because a simple test could have verified that mice do not spontaneously generate themselves out of dirty clothes and wheat.”[ 10 ]
Neil deGrasse Tyson
True, scientists no longer believe in “spontaneous generation” of the type they spoke of in the 19th century. Now they believe in “abiogenesis,” a theory of life arising through chemical evolution – but it has the same problem: it still requires life to come from lifeless matter – a ludicrous proposition. The list of reasons of why chemical evolution is impossible is extensive and far beyond the scope of this article. So I can’t cover them here. (Though you can see one of the reasons in my previous article here on the impossibility of evolution to produce a protein.) Let me suffice it by giving you the bottom line:
“The idea of the origin of life by natural processes is a preposterous idea. Absolutely preposterous idea.”[ 11 ]
Don Batten
Agricultural Scientist and Creationist
“For evolutionists to believe in chemical evolution, this is not a position they got from science, but a position they got from blind faith. They’re basically having to believe in miracles because it’s not real chemistry there they can appeal to.” [ 12 ]
Jonathan Sarfarti
Physical Chemist, Spectroscopist and Creationist
2. Evolution contradicts Genetic processes.
Once again I will limit myself to just two of the many areas of genetics where evolutionary processes contradict known genetic processes.
A) Evolution with it’s trial and error method over millions of years predicts that there will be much “junk” found in the code of DNA. Some evolutionists state that up to 98% of our DNA is junk. But scientists have learned how seriously mistaken that view is. Protein coding is one of the main functions of DNA. But there are parts of DNA that don’t code for proteins, and it’s those areas that evolutionists have called “junk.” But with further research, scientists have learned that the non-protein coding portions of DNA formerly considered “junk” by some are performing a number of other critical cellular functions. And in fact, “It’s now known that parts of genome code for more than 1 thing at the same time.” [ 13 ] In other words, there are messages within other messages of DNA strings. Such double coding or multiple coding – if you will – is a mark of extreme intelligence as I pointed out in DNA and Windtalkers . Further,
“Overlapping codes are almost impossible to improve upon – because if you improve on one of the codes you are destroying or disrupting one of the other codes.”[ 14 ]
John Sanford
Thus the concept of “junk DNA” is, as plant geneticist John Sanford states: ” …profoundly wrong and will be recorded in history as one of the “greatest blunders in science.” [ 15 ]
B) Evolution states that random mutation and natural selection can emulate the process of design to get ever more complex creatures until you get the diversity of creatures we see today. Yet the mutations in the human genome are destroying good design, not adding new information, or features. The human genome is suffering from genetic entropy, and evolution can do nothing to stop it. The result:
“So genetic entropy is profound…It is lethal to genetic evolutionary theory – it means things are going down, not up.”[ 16 ]
John Sanford
Once again evolution predicts the exact opposite of what the physical reality is.
3. Evolution breaks the Laws of Chemistry
Many suggestions from evolutionists for the first living cells have them emerging from some primordial ooze or soup. But that theory is seriously flawed. Because for life, you need to build many large molecules from small ones. The problem is – the chemistry of molecules doesn’t work that way. The normal process is large molecules are regularly broken down to smaller ones; not smaller ones joined together to get larger ones:
“Everything I’ve learned about real chemistry shows that reactions go in the opposite way from what’s required for life to come from non living chemicals – breaking up large molecules to small molecules.”[ 17 ]
Jonathan Sarfati
And with regard to the primordial soup:
“Any chemist wouldn’t have water in the reaction because water tends to drive the reaction in the opposite direction towards the little molecules.
Yet the primordial soup would have inevitably had loads of water in it, so it’s the last place a real chemist would try to make proteins or DNA.”[ 18 ]
Jonathan Sarfati
Chalk up another huge fail for evolution with regards to any chance of building the necessary chemical building blocks for life while abiding by the laws of chemistry.
4. Evolution breaks the Laws of Information Theory
Philosophical materialist scientists (those who believe only material things exist) used to believe that reality consisted only of matter and energy – which are – as Einstein revealed to the world, different manifestations of the same thing. But in these latter days, scientists have had to acknowledge that there is a non-material portion that comprises reality – information:
“During the 19th century scientist believed there were two fundamental entities – matter and energy. But as we enter the 21st century there’s a third fundamental entity that science has had to recognize and that is information.”[ 19 ]
Stephen Meyer
Philosopher of Science
Even evolutionists recognize that DNA contains information. The information is in fact coded information. Further, as noted above, it is coded with overlapping information making it information packaged in a highly complex manner . The question that Darwinists can’t answer, is what is the origin of the information in DNA and wherever else information is found in living creatures? And what is the origin of the highly complex information storage and retrieval system we call DNA? We know two things about the origin of information: 1. Natural processes cannot create information. 2. Intelligent agents can produce information:
“So at present there is no naturalistic explanation, no natural cause that produces information. Not natural selection, not self organizational processes, not pure chance.
“But we do know of a cause which is capable of producing information, and that is intelligence.”[ 20 ]
Stephen Meyer
Darwinist say that mutations and natural selection can create information, but as Meyer points out they cannot. Mutations destroy information, and natural selection can only eliminate information. Evolutionists need a naturalistic way to create information, but there is none. Information comes only from agents with intelligence. This is such a serious challenge to evolution that Meyer characterized the problem this way:
“Neo-Darwinism and its associated theories of chemical evolution and the like will not be able to survive the biology of the information age, the biology of the 21st century.”[ 21 ]
5. Evolution breaks Darwin’s own slow, gradual process maxim
This next item is included not because it is science, but because it demonstrates that not only does evolution not follow the laws of science it doesn’t even follow its own laws. Punctuated Equilibrium is an update to evolutionary theory proposed in 1972 by noted paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. It was proposed because evolutionists realized the fossil record does not conform to Darwin’s theory of slow, gradual change of species. As Wikipedia explains it, the fossil record of an evolutionary progression:
Eldredge and Gould were among the evolutionists who realized the evidence simply doesn’t fit Darwin’s theory, and instead of discarding the theory, changed it to allow what Darwin said was forbidden: saltations – or jumps in the fossil record. But as evolution evangelist Richard Dawkins acknowledges:
Evolutionists like to pretend they believe in Darwin’s theory of slow and gradual change, but the fact that punctuated equilibrium was even proposed shows that 1.) The fossil record doesn’t support Darwin’s theory, and 2.) Evolutionists have conceded that slow gradual processes simply cannot do what they claim they can, and that in fact the only solution is something that can produce saltations – jumps. But jumps require the intervention of an agent outside of the material world; something that can intelligently manipulate natural processes to do what slow and steady processes can’t – to do what Dawkins correctly characterized as “a miracle.”
Conclusion
This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all the laws of science broken by evolutionary theory, but merely one sufficient to show that that Darwinian evolution does in fact break many laws of science and in fact breaks its own scientific requirements and therefore is rightfully characterized as a pseudoscience. Marine biologist Robert Carter summarizes it succinctly:
So you can legitimately call evolution pseudoscience, or you could call it religion. But if you know anything about the operation of science in the real world, and how Darwinists state evolution operates, you cannot call evolution science."
Goodness. This is laugh out loud stupid.
Did you post this thinking it was high quality criticism?
no, I posted it knowing it is wise, smart, and highly intelligent criticism of the idiotic lunacy that is the pseudoscience quack theory of evolution and those who advocate for it.
Says the guy who believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old! Funny how you can't even discredit evolution with anything of substance, much less prove creationism nonsense. you can criticize evolution all you want. but you are wrong in your dismissal of it and also show a profound ignorance regarding your understanding and of what constitutes a scientific theory.
The chemical/elemental constituents of every living cell on Earth is lifeless matter (you know, that stuff on the periodic table).
Abiogenesis is an altogether different topic, though. The investigation into the origin of the first cell(s) is still ongoing, but that doesn't change the fact that evolution occurred and is still occurring in the descendants of the first cell(s).
The term junk DNA was a bad nickname from the 60's that stuck (kind of like the Big Bang), but how does the fact that we're still learning about the non-protein coding parts of DNA disprove evolution? Moreover, how does it "contradict genetic processes"? Every cell in your body has a complete copy of your genome, but not every cell is the same. Some are bone cells, some are skin cells, various organ cells, etc. Something has to select specific genes for coding from the entire genome contained in each cell in order to make different cells do different things. Regulatory stuff like that is being found in parts of that non-protein coding DNA. It actually makes perfect sense for it to be there. But, again, how does a bad nickname for non-protein coding DNA disprove evolution?
Some mutation events can ADD new material and negate "genetic entropy". Even so, harmful mutations (bad enough to slow or prevent reproduction) tend to get weeded out by selection over time. It's not as if harmful mutations just keep surviving, accumulating, and degrading a formerly healthy genome across an entire population.
This is like a whole new level of stupid. I guess the entire fields of molecular biology and organic chemistry are conspiracies and don't actually exist. Because, you know, all of those carbon chain molecules that they study "break the laws of chemistry" according to the moron who wrote this. For crying out loud, nature makes organic molecules all the time. Amino acids have even been found in space.
See, stuff like this is why evolution-denying creationists are so often treated like imbeciles, because this is imbecilic. There is a very simple answer for this so-called "problem", and we've known about it for decades. How can it be that "creation scientists" never got the memo in all of that time?
The easiest way for DNA to gain completely new information without corrupting the old is through gene duplications.
DNA is a self-replicating molecule. That means it makes copies of itself. The replication process is astonishingly accurate, but it isn't perfect; mistakes can and do happen. Sometimes in the form of point mutations: a base change, an insertion, a deletion, whatever. Other times big chunks can actually be duplicated and you get a copy of an entire gene sequence, including the controlling information in the "junk" DNA. The entire genome can even be copied. Whole genome duplications happened twice in our lineage, while other lineages have more. I think wheat has 6 or 7. The point is, duplication events give organisms extra copies of genes in which future mutations can occur without altering the original code in other copies. You can gain entirely new information, added to the old (not instead of it).
Duplications can happen in any cell in the body, but in order for them to become new material for evolution to work with they have to occur in reproductive cells, so that the change is heritable and can be passed on to future generations.
Evolution can happen both slowly and fast. Very slowly if by point mutations, but fairly rapidly following a large duplication event (for an obvious reason: lots of new material for mutations to work with). So-called "jumps" do not require any kind of magical intervention from "outside of the material world."
Why are creationists so fixated on Darwin, anyway? He was very important, of course, but most of what we know about evolution today came after him, some of it very recently. Advances in genomic sequencing has created an explosion of knowledge about evolutionary relationships of late, both ancient and modern. For example, we only know about the Denisovans (a new group of ancient humans) because of DNA that was sequenced from a finger bone found just a decade ago in a cave that was otherwise a Neanderthal site.
One more thing, when scientists hypothesize and debate each other over particular aspects of evolutionary history in the fossil record (as with Gould's punctuated equilibrium), it does not invalidate that evolutionary history itself. Neither does refining and improving a theory over time. That's how theories work.
Whenever someone conflates abiogenesis with evolution, that's a clear indicator they have no idea what they're talking about. Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate theories.
Or the "God particle."
I've actually heard some theists say the human genome was "perfect," but the act or introduction of "sin" caused it to become imperfect and cause defects, i.e. "disease is caused by sin." Where do people come up with such nonsense?
Compared to the rest of the tripe presented, that's saying something.
Darwin was a theist himself and he struggled to reconcile his findings regarding evolution with his faith. But he was also rational minded enough to know to follow where the actual evidence led, rather than let dogma override his reasoning. Too bad not many seem capable of doing that.
Indeed. Current scientific discoveries and observations only support and reinforce Darwin's initial theory. There is none to discredit it. And evolution is probably one of the more heavily contested scientific theories. But it has always survived scrutiny.
That comment wasn't worthy of your own and its only vote up. The article is stupid. It is just silliness...
A perfect example of emotional reasoning.
Oxymoron?
Creation is what actually happened. All else is pseudoscience.
That's nice. Prove it!
Cretinism actually happened. This seed is absolute proof of that.
Still waiting for you to prove your assertions. [deleted]
I see your long beard turning gray now.
It's turning full on white and almost reaches the floor. You should see my finger/toe nails, Lol
Still can't address the challenge and support your assertions I see. What a surprise! >sarc<
No.
Why not? If you're so sure about creationism being true and evolution is pseudoscience, then you should be able to easily prove it! You made the claim, so prove it! Unless you can't (which we all already know). Then that means your claims lack any merit and you lack any credibility and no one has any reason to take anything you say with any serious consideration. You just end up making yourself looking woefully uninformed and foolish!
Why do I imagine someone holding their breath and stomping their feet when reading this statement.
More like burying their head in the sand.
He clearly can't/won't. It's quite the lack of intellectual integrity.
Speaking of which, here is one example of evolution in action:
There's also the Eastern fence lizard :
Then there's the classic Darwinian finches .
Those are just a few examples of evolution. Creationism by contrast posits that god created everything as is, no change whatsoever. But since we can clearly see the evidence for evolution, including the aforementioned examples, that not only shows evolution is real and a valid scientific theory, but it also discredits creationism. So the idea that creationism is true and/or evolution is false is nothing more than dogma overwhelming rationality and an emotional or psychological need to place mere belief over actual facts and evidence. I doubt creationists would actually consider such absurd beliefs could be wrong, especially in light of actual empirical evidence. It just shows an intellectual weakness and/or lack of intellectual honesty and integrity.
One of my favorites is the mudskipper, a fish that has evolved the ability to spend much of its time on land, amphibian style, to take advantage of food sources in tidal zones. It eats out of water, it mates out of water, and it breathes out of water (in two ways: it can enclose a little water around its gills to take with it, and it can absorb oxygen right through its skin, just like amphibians). It even walks around on fins that have evolved an elbow-like joint half way down.
It's a perfect example of an evolutionary transitional state between water-dwelling and land-dwelling creatures. It's like a modern-day Tiktaalik .
I say "it" even though there are a few slightly different species, but you know what I mean.
Mine too. Especially this mudskipper .
Lol. What about these guys ?
Relatives of the Watchman Gobies in the marine aquarium trade. Useful burrowing fish with a ton of intelligence and personality.
Now that's some funny shit.
You should see the other anti-evolution nonsense article he wrote. Stupid doesn't even begin to describe it. But it is laughable. Perhaps he just likes to be laughed at while demonstrating ignorance of science and evolution in particular.
He's also a denier of anthropogenic global warming/climate change. Seems he can't get anything right.
Tell me about it. He seems to prefer beliefs over actual facts or reality.
More lies. I wonder if any of those engaging in manufactured outrage over an article they perceive as being untruthful will be here calling out this crock?
no surprise either.
I am. I even posted a separate article discussing the evidence and validity of evolution using actual science and examples (no belief).
There is nothing believable in the quackery known as evolution.
What you fail to understand (as usual) is that belief has nothing to do with it. If you have to go by belief, then that shows you know nothing about evolution and/or science and prefer willful ignorance. By all means, provide some objective, empirical evidence to discredit evolution and support creationism. Otherwise, you're statement is not only asinine, it's anti-science rhetoric and not worthy of any serious consideration.
Do you have anything to offer other than platitudes? The entirely uninformed content of this seed has been challenged by virtually everyone here yet you, the seeder, just pop in with the equivalent of 'nuh-uh'.
Do you have any understanding of the subject matter you seeded? If so, make a thoughtful contribution on your own seed.
Of course he doesn't have anything of value to offer. Just disingenuous anti-science nonsense. The fact that he can't back up his rhetoric, much less refute any challenge to it only shows he has no interest in any meaningful or intellectual discussion, not to mention a total lack of credibility and intellectual integrity.
Just as he did on the vine, he seeds and runs.
C4P, HA, Xx, and how many other identities has he had?
Almost as if he was paid by dark money to troll.
That just proves my point about the glaring lack of intellectual integrity.
I'm not sure why something on evolution (a scientific theory) is posted in the religion & ethics section?
As an example of poor ethics? IMO, it is unethical to attempt to pass off pseudoscience as science.
It's a poor example of religious morality, too. Lying isn't very Christian. So maybe it does belong in religion and ethics. As an example of what not to do.
It's also dishonest.
Oh, I'm sure certain theists actually believe the nonsense they spew is true. of course, that doesn't make it so.
Clearly. If the author has learned about the abiogenesis hypothesis then he surely knows that it has nothing to do with 'Darwinian evolution'. It is blatant intellectual dishonesty. Keep the flock ignorant and loyal.
Or just an outright total ignorance of science. I find many who subscribe to creationist nonsense generally do not have a firm grasp on science. When they say things like "evolution is just a theory," or equate evolution with abiogenesis, it's clear they are sorely lacking in scientific acumen.
Ignorance is bliss, right?
The brilliance that we present here is true. Creation is our origins as in created in the image of God. Those who pretend they evolved from other lesser animals are free to engage in their pseudoscience.
Once again you make baseless assertions and offer nothing to prove them, even after being challenged to do so multiple time. Why is that? Unless you can actually prove what you say, then you're just talking nonsense. and have zero credibility!
He's certainly not convincing anyone else of his nonsense.
It's called facts and evidence, based on the scientific method and critical thinking, and not mere belief or wishful thinking.
Same topic, different article and still no evidence for the "god did it" theory.
And still the same BS too.
"Theory" is giving it way too much credit, especially since there is no evidence whatsoever. "God did it" isn't even a hypothesis.
Lol layman's definition of theory not scientific theory, two completely different beasts. Although your statement is accurate either way as most layman are also aware YEC is BS
Layman or not, "theory" is still giving creationism and "god did it" too much credit. In layman's terms, creationism is BS! lol
Ridiculous. The source, Rational Faith, is an oxymoron in and of itself. This source belongs on the NT shit pile with the other YEC bullshit source, The Stream.
Nah that'll just provoke another temper tantrum like the one he's currently having.
Progressives will not be happy until every book that is in disagreement with their point of view is being consumed on the burn pile.
We would be happy if the Republican party simply started to operate with basic integrity. I don't mean being completely truthful all the time, politics is politics, just being sincere in their desire to do things that they believe are good for the American people. They aren't, haven't been for decades, they are nothing but a gang of corporate thugs with an army of incredibly stupid supporters who vote against their own best interests.
Just more paranoid nonsense!
Still no proof of your statements and now you're deflecting, yeah your credibility is soaring through the roof right now(sarc)
Though to be nice to you I'll pass your thoughts(?) on to the first progressive I meet.
Not surprising either. But did you really expect any proof whatsoever to back up his statements? It seems as if intellectual integrity or acumen is "soaring" as high as the credibility, right? Lol
Lmao absolutely not
Surprisingly I did expect the deflection, kinda stoked about that
Deflection is the best some have to offer. But it just shows intellectual cowardice and/laziness and shows how weak their position really is.
As I recall, it is conservative religious fanatics who burn books.
I recall religious fanatics burning Beatles albums because John said "we seem to be more popular than Jesus".
Liberals don't burn books, conservatives do.
At least he’s honest as to why The Stream is really banned here. Intolerance toward a particular point of view.
Creationism is a mental disease with only one known cure.
Is the cure for those who believe in a young earth to go on a hunger strike till Jesus returns and confirms that the fossils we found and dated were actually planted by Satan to confuse mankind? After just a week or two humanity would indeed be cured of such nonsensical postulating.
The cure for ignorance like creationism is knowledge. Of course, one must have a rational mind first.
It’s atheism that fits whatever you are talking about.
It's theism that makes things up to fit whatever beliefs you may have. Creationism is a perfect example.
Reading this misguided nonsense I had to wonder how someone can be so stubbornly confused about biochemical evolution.
The author bio:
... and from his website ...
A rather clear agenda: the Bible always trumps science. We have an ordained minister who thinks 'Bible-first' pointing out the 'problems' in one of the most highly corroborated findings in empirical science.
This is a perfect example of stubborn, willful ignorance.
Or just keeping one's head buried in the sand. Or just selective hearing, among other things.
[deleted]
The desperation to discredit science is amazing. You failed, but that you try at all is hilarious.
[Removed]
Removed for context
Nope, it's you who has it wrong! Evolution is a valid and accepted scientific theory with supporting empirical evidence. So belief is neither required or necessary for it. It's creationism that's nothing but belief and you have failed to prove otherwise everytime you've been challenged to do so!
Not sure what you responded to since it was deleted for context so I’m at a disadvantage here since your reply to my deleted comment seems to be the last word. Creation science is right and the theory of evolution is wrong.
So you don't even remember what you said? No matter. You still haven't proven any of your erroneous assertions. So prove creation is right and evolution is wrong!
I guess we are getting a glimpse at what it must have been like in the 16th century watching a minority desperately cling to the geocentric model after the heliocentric model was demonstrated -by facts- to be the correct model.
It's sad that such a mentality and/or willful ignorance persists to this day.
Wow, just wow. The lady in the video looked and sounded completely insane. She clearly wasn't even listening to what prof. Dawkins was saying. She goes on about evidence, but offers none herself for her position. Muck like certain individuals here. There's just no rationalization with someone who is completely irrational.
Thanks for those clips. I enjoy Prof. Dawkins discussions. I noticed how the other guy in the 2nd video employed a logical fallacy. I'm a lititle surprised Prof. Dawkins didn't call him out on it.
Yeah I put forth those videos as an illustration of people insisting on holding a belief in spite of the facts to the contrary. The woman in the first video is an outstanding illustration of willful ignorance. She claims there is no evidence for evolution, Dawkins observes the physical evidence alone is overwhelming (not even getting into the genetic evidence) and invites her to go to the Smithsonian and see for herself. You can see in her eyes that she knows she is busted yet she insists that none of that physical evidence is actually evidence and that the actual transitional evidence is simply drawings.
She has no argument yet she continues to simply insist (demand) that there is no evidence.
Indeed. Or she simply doesn't understand what constitutes actual evidence. To her and people like her, mere belief is more valid than actual evidence and they simply reject anything that contradicts those beliefs. It's not just willful ignorance, it intellectual dishonesty.
I suspect Dawkins has found that pointing out a technical fallacy goes nowhere. Most people (at least the ones he would seek to convince) probably could not care less about logical fallacies. The incredulity approach seemed to work better. I find it interesting that anyone believes in such stuff. Muhammad flies to Heaven on a winged horse. So Heaven is in the sky beyond the clouds? Do we know anything about what lies beyond the troposphere? Yes. Yes, we do. We even fly jets at this level and nobody has reported running into any heavenly beings up there. Indeed we have explored beyond the exosphere. Oddly none of our satellites (orbiting within the exosphere) have captured any heavenly beings there either. And then we have all the work beyond the exosphere with Earth-based and satellite-based telescopes. Still not a single report of heavenly beings.
Where, exactly, does this reporter think Muhammad's winged horse took him? Is Heaven in our solar system, our galaxy, our universe?
I would encourage the reporter to T H I N K, not just blindly accept something because one's religion says it is true. Especially before indoctrinating his children with this stuff.
The problem is, religious belief and/or delusion requires blind belief and obedience, and not actual thinking or rationality. After all, thinking for oneself and questioning religious tenets will incur the wrath of god and get you sent to hell, right?
Actually no.
Actually yes!
[deleted]
Talking to yourself?
Ask SP. he deleted whatever it was I said.
The best part of his article? It goes out of it's way to denounce any kind of facts, with ZERO proof of "creationism" other than..."god said so". Should be a comedy routine.
It might be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. What is rather telling is that several examples of evidence for evolution has been presented already. But it has either been ignored or rejected in favor of mere belief. Meanwhile, not one shred of evidence has been presented to support creationism or which discredits evolution. What does that tell you about creationists? Especially in regards to intellectual integrity?
WWII Plane Found Frozen in Greenland Ice
A team has located a World War II P-38 Lightning fighter plane beneath more than 300 feet of ice in Greenland. They first found hints of the plane’s position in 2011, but a drone equipped with ground-penetrating radar recently confirmed its location. The team hopes to salvage the plane in 2019.1
In July 1942, two B-17 bombers and six P-38 fighters were en route from the United States to Great Britain via Greenland and Iceland. After encountering a severe snowstorm, all eight planes were forced to make an emergency landing in southeast Greenland. The pilots were rescued, but the planes were abandoned and eventually buried beneath years of accumulating snow and ice.1
The first P-38 was recovered from the ice back in August 1992. Dubbed “Glacier Girl,” it was restored to flight-worthy status and quickly became famous. Glacier Girl was recovered from more than 260 feet of ice that had accumulated in just fifty years.2,3
That this much ice had accumulated in just fifty years demonstrated that ice sheets can accumulate very quickly. Some biblical critics think the deep Greenland ice cores present an unanswerable argument for an old Earth,4so creationists were understandably excited about the Glacier Girl discovery.
That this much ice had accumulated in just fifty years demonstrated that ice sheets can accumulate very quickly..............http://www.icr.org/article/wwii-plane-found-frozen-in-greenland-ice/
It is funny how some creationists are so eager to try to show dating methods are wrong. Trouble is they always seem to jump to naive conclusions. Maybe if they actually engaged in scientific analysis they would not look so ridiculous all the time. Here is some analysis from the original finding :
The excitement soon dissipated when actual scientists weighed in with facts:
Moral of our story is don't just leap to conclusions. Science is all about carefully gathering quality evidence and engaging in objective analysis. Comparing apples to oranges is not science.
The linked article covered all your pseudoscience concerns.
Formulate an actual rebuttal. Demonstrate that you understand this subject matter. From what I have observed you are simply parroting claims from YEC talking heads without any real understanding of the underlying science of ice cores.
His "rebuttals" seem to be along the lines of covering his ears while yelling "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
What linked article? None of the links in your post took me to the article. One took me to a twitter log-in page for some reason. I had to search for it to read it.
What part of the article explains how thickness is supposed to indicate age? Also, what does the article have to do with evolution or ID (the topic of this seed)?
These planes were found over 25 years ago, and creationist claims about them have already been addressed. As far as I know, no ice cores were taken at the site, so on what technical, scientific basis can any claim about age even be made?
I see that the article you posted was published just this month, so could you answer something else for me? What makes creationists keep posting the same nonsense over and over, year after year, long after it's been shown to be nonsense?
Zombie mice...
http://www.icr.org/article/wwii-plane-found-frozen-in-greenland-ice
Yeah. I already found and read it, but thanks anyway.
Now, could you explain in your own words whatever point you're trying to make with that article?
Best of luck dig.
That creation science is real and that evolution is pseudoscience.
Except that you're wrong as usual. But you can keep believing your nonsense if it makes you feel better, which I suspect is half the reason you spew such ignorant tripe. Those of us who actually understand science know better! It's interesting to note that you haven't yet demonstrated that creationism is real and evolution is not. When you do, maybe then someone will take you seriously. Until then, you're just embarrassing yourself.
Nope. No matter how much you wish it to be.
Wishful thinking and mere belief is all he has to offer. What's funny is that he somehow thinks that it is as if not more valid or rational than actual scientific evidence or facts.
That's truly amusing. Here's an except from your linked articles supposed "creation science":
" Since the Genesis Flood occurred about 4,500 years ago , the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets cannot be any older than that. Of course, the estimated time of formation depends critically upon how fast snowfall rates were in the past. Higher snowfall rates would enable the ice sheets to form well within the biblical timeframe."
So what was their methodology for confirming that a global flood occurred and when? Oh yeah, they didn't do any actual research of the planet, they didn't look at the geological record that would obviously have physical evidence if such an event occurred just 4,500 years ago. Why didn't they present any of this evidence? Because the evidence doesn't exist, the actual geological record definitively disproves the Genesis flood account on every front.
Creation science methodology to create a theory: Read the bible and attempt to interpret it to fit to any found physical evidence, and ignore anything that doesn't fit by multiplying times "God can do anything".
Scientific methodology to create a theory: A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with scientific method , using accepted protocols of observation , measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment . In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning . Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge .
Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation. Abductive conclusions are thus qualified as having a remnant of uncertainty or doubt, which is expressed in retreat terms such as "best available" or "most likely".
Religious reasoning starts with a conclusion, "God did it", and then seeks to find any corroborating evidence that could be interpreted to support that conclusion. If evidence surfaces that does not support the "God" conclusion, it can be discarded as either misunderstood, misinterpreted or fabricated, some even going so far as to claim an evil invisible spirit creature named Satan fabricated any evidence that doesn't support the God conclusion.
So even saying "Creation science" is like saying "Dry wet" or "Immobile Racer".
Science: noun - the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Creation science: misnomer - attempting to cherry pick from the observations and experiments of our physical and natural world performed by scientists and claim the evidence supports already existing religious conclusions. It is the shaving of corners off the square peg so it will fit in their round God hole.
I only wish I could give more than 1 thumbs up to that.
You could reply more than once,
jest sayin'
👎
I see you can't actually refute anything Dis says. Not surprising either.
[deleted]
And what tricks do you refer to?
"Creation science" doesn't exist. But you're hellbent on insisting it does while dismissing the actual science of evolution. It's like being a Palin supporter in the face of all evidence that indicates why you shouldn't be. It makes no sense. Like the state of Jefferson, you make no sense. Yet you will insist you do despite all evidence to the contrary.
We just added two more Ca. counties wanting to be a part of the state of Jefferson. Mariposa and Stanislaus.
Too bad for you your mythical state of Jefferson doesn't exist, much like your god and creationism. But you can certainly dream it does if it makes you feel better.
Evolution: Not Science, Pseudoscience
Yup, keep thinking that way and you will eventually get a real life experience in devolution and a real time paleo diet while hunting and foraging for your supper.