Other Post Not all scientists are atheist

[BCNTM]

And according to wikipedia, around 7% of the world population are agnostics and atheist (right minded people(?)), so 93% of the world population must be all crazy then

93% belief and faith?

Belief and faith if you need a crutch, because you are so hopeless at life is all fine - but you say intelligent design - produce the designer. Until then its just pseudo science - something that you cannot imperatively prove (or deny)

Just think we could be a snow globe on someones desk that they shake every so often for a laugh?

@digrar - 'Nuwaubians who maintain that Nikola Tesla came from the planet Venus.' the truth is out there?

 

[Mordoror]

Yes, it doesn't really matter if one believe in God or not, one could study and practice science, and be successful with it. The only problem is when "right minded" evolution scientists and scholars discriminate and persecute their God-believing peers and dismiss them as bunch loonies and pseudo-scientists.

You do know that most scientists and scholars in the world believed in a Creator or God before the introduction of darwin's theory of evolution right? Darwin did fooled most of them in those days and even until today. But since the 90's, a lot of scientists have already been questioning the validity of the darwin's theory of evolution, and in 2001, hundreds of darwin skeptics in the scientific community formally expressed their dissent from Darwinism and it has been growing since then>>https://dissentfromdarwin.org/about/

Darwin's theory of evolution cannot explain the origins of life and the universe, darwin's evolution cannot explain the irreducibly complex structures in genetics or the fine tuning of the universe, it only points to Intelligent Design (by a Creator or God). Here is a good read for you if you have time >> http://www.discovery.org/a/24041/#problem3

And according to wikipedia, around 7% of the world population are agnostics and atheist (right minded people(?)), so 93% of the world population must be all crazy then

Again you are talking about things you know nothing about, John Snow
Darwin himself was a believer
Darwin didn't fooled anybody, that's the rabbit hardcore religious biggots back in his days that went all crazy because evolution was going against the principle of Man created according to His image. (In which case, given what Humans are , i don't want to meet God, this old MoFo.....)
Darwin theory was not about explaining the creation of universe. It is a separate branch of science (Astronomy and Cosmology by opposition to Biology)
Darwin theory was not about origin of life but evolution of species (which is the exact title of his book)
Plus science has evolved since 1880 you know .....Darwin theory is a general principle that ignored DNA (for reasons) so is a bit lacking precision in regard of recent discoveries
And finally wiki is less than accurate
But don't leave facts hitting your gums when you have a magical answer to everything

 

[Mordoror]

Just to point how people speaking about Darwin theory don't know nothing about it

The evolution of species is not a Darwinian concept
It was theoricized before him by several people : Baptiste de Monnet, Chevalier de Lamarck, Charles Lyell, Charles Wells, Patrick Matthew including a pastor Joseph Townsend.
To the point that Patrick Matthew accused Darwin of plagiarism
What was new in Darwin book was the concept that features were passed on the offspring (which was an idea ahead of its time up to Mendel work)
Darwin was attacked because his book was attacked by a group of biggots accusing him of writing that Men was descending from monkeys which is stated nowhere in his book
What he says is that animals have all a common ancestry somewhere in history
And Darwin theory became famous because of those attacks. Kinda a Straissand effect.....
Now we have again religious biggots attacking the same theory in the same way, biggots that don't know what they are talking about, that never read his book, that never put his work (and the works of all aforementioned people) in perspective just to push a theist agenda about an Intelligent Design

If the Design was so intelligent, how does it explain some evolutionnary dead end situations (why the Panda which has a carnivorous digestive tract is eating bamboos) or less than efficient biological structures (why have an optical chiasma when the most efficient nervous wire would be a straight connection, why have appendicite when it causes more harm than good etc .....)

 

[Jake84]

Some thoughtful, documented and intelligent posts from @Mordoror in this thread.

 

[Buster23]

Again you are talking about things you know nothing about, John Snow
Darwin himself was a believer
Darwin didn't fooled anybody, that's the rabbit hardcore religious biggots back in his days that went all crazy because evolution was going against the principle of Man created according to His image. (In which case, given what Humans are , i don't want to meet God, this old MoFo.....)
Darwin theory was not about explaining the creation of universe. It is a separate branch of science (Astronomy and Cosmology by opposition to Biology)
Darwin theory was not about origin of life but evolution of species (which is the exact title of his book)
Plus science has evolved since 1880 you know .....Darwin theory is a general principle that ignored DNA (for reasons) so is a bit lacking precision in regard of recent discoveries
And finally wiki is less than accurate
But don't leave facts hitting your gums when you have a magical answer to everything

Yes, Darwin was a believer but not until he learned about Charles Lyell's book Principles of Geology and accepted Uniformitarianism (the time frame of vast geological ages) which forms as the foundation of his theory on evolution. From then on, Darwin was an unbeliever until his death.

Well yes, Darwin and his theory does not explain the creation of the universe by itself but since it is the ultimate dogma/religion of the secular scientists and materialists, therefore all branches of science (i.e. geology, astronomy, cosmology etc.) has to conform with it. Hence, these branches of science that supports darwinian evolution are just extensions (syntheses) of darwin's theory. The funny thing is that modern science has already and repeatedly refuted the validity darwin's theory's, however most secular scientists still refused to accept the evidences and still believe it as the only truth. But fortunately, some groups of brilliant scientists have dissented from darwinism and they are growing in numbers as we speak >>https://dissentfromdarwin.org/about/

By the way, I was not really serious about the wiki reference, and I am open to other sources of statistics if you have any.

 

[Mordoror]

Well yes, Darwin and his theory does not explain the creation of the universe by itself but since it is the ultimate dogma/religion of the secular scientists and materialists, therefore all branches of science (i.e. geology, astronomy, cosmology etc.) has to conform with it. Hence, these branches of science that supports darwinian evolution are just extensions (syntheses) of darwin's theory.

What a load of crap.....
Cosmology and studies about creation of the universe, planetary systems and star systems are branches of astrophysics, they have nothing to do with with biology and don't even discuss it (except in the tight field of xenobiology)
I clearly fail to see the link between what we know about the way planets and stars are born and the way species evolve. On one side you have physical mechanisms and on the other biological mechanisms.
You are just using a straw and comparing a nuclear plant with a field of banana.

The funny thing is that modern science has already and repeatedly refuted the validity darwin's theory's, however most secular scientists still refused to accept the evidences and still believe it as the only truth. But fortunately, some groups of brilliant scientists have dissented from darwinism and they are growing in numbers as we speak >>https://dissentfromdarwin.org/about/
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/about/

https://dissentfromdarwin.org/about/

LOL
Modern science ? or rather a selected minority of religiously driven biggots pushing for a theist agenda.
And no they are not in growing number (prove it by the way), just that those mollahs are more vocal and gullible people are listening them more thanks to idiocratic stance and lack of general knowledge.
I don't blame you to be gullible, i blame it on your shitty educational system and the influence of religious lobbies that are turning your country into Iran lite slowly but surely
But i'll challenge you to find me brilliant scientists dissenting Darwinism, the challenge being finding them outside politicaly driven groups and think tanks like the one you are quoting over and over again.
You'd find almost none. Oh there are some (that are still secular btw) like neo-lamarckists but those can be counted on a single hand....
All the others are pushing ID crap
Which is horseshit given the amount of evolutionary dead ends that existed and are still existing
If the ID was real, then He/She/It is the crappiest engineer of the universe..................

 

[Buster23]

Just to point how people speaking about Darwin theory don't know nothing about it

The evolution of species is not a Darwinian concept
It was theoricized before him by several people : Baptiste de Monnet, Chevalier de Lamarck, Charles Lyell, Charles Wells, Patrick Matthew including a pastor Joseph Townsend.
To the point that Patrick Matthew accused Darwin of plagiarism
What was new in Darwin book was the concept that features were passed on the offspring (which was an idea ahead of its time up to Mendel work)
Darwin was attacked because his book was attacked by a group of biggots accusing him of writing that Men was descending from monkeys which is stated nowhere in his book
What he says is that animals have all a common ancestry somewhere in history
And Darwin theory became famous because of those attacks. Kinda a Straissand effect.....
Now we have again religious biggots attacking the same theory in the same way, biggots that don't know what they are talking about, that never read his book, that never put his work (and the works of all aforementioned people) in perspective just to push a theist agenda about an Intelligent Design

If the Design was so intelligent, how does it explain some evolutionnary dead end situations (why the Panda which has a carnivorous digestive tract is eating bamboos) or less than efficient biological structures (why have an optical chiasma when the most efficient nervous wire would be a straight connection, why have appendicite when it causes more harm than good etc .....)

I agree that darwin was not the first to conceptualize evolution, however he is the one who popularized it and brought it to universal acceptance in the secular scientific community in the 19th century until today.

And on your allegation that Darwin was attacked by "religious bigots", below article
https://www.historyextra.com/period...ies-cause-a-clash-between-church-and-science/ says "probably more fantasy than fact". And on the contrary, it is the evolutionists today who are attacking their peers who questions darwinism or even just considering intelligent design a possibility.

Evolutionary dead end? Perhaps because it did not evolved (macro) in the first place because it was designed that way. Natural selection and adaptation is not evolution by the way, so perhaps the panda has just adapted to eat bamboo instead meat. Vestigial organs (like appendix) has been proven to have important role in our immune system, and the design of the eye has been proven to be "optimal" https://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins ...so it is intelligent design indeed.

 

[Mordoror]

And on your allegation that Darwin was attacked by "religious bigots", below article
https://www.historyextra.com/period...ies-cause-a-clash-between-church-and-science/ says "probably more fantasy than fact". And on the contrary, it is the evolutionists today who are attacking their peers who questions darwinism and even just considering intelligent design a possibility.

Ah really ?
Although liberal Anglicans supported Darwin theory, the Church of England went immediately against him. And large writtings were printed as criticism (see :Essay and Reviews by John Parker as well as the reaction of the Bishop of Oxford). Stop shifting the blame, the attack is from your side since 1990 and your attempts to push for an ID. As i said previously, you won't find a scientist plastering the net, the news and whatnot with theories about if God exists or not. While your kin is occupying whole net adresses for that only purpose....

Evolutionary dead end? Perhaps because it did not evolved (macro) in the first place because it was designed that way. Natural selection and adaptation is not evolution by the way, so perhaps the panda has just adapted to eat bamboo instead meat. Vestigial organs (like appendix) has been proven to have important role in our immune system, and the design of the eye has been proven to "optimal" https://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins ...so it is intelligent design indeed.

Natural selection and adaptation are the engines of evolution. This is the basis of Darwin theory. If you can't understand the link, you are hopeless
BTW Panda is NOT adapted to eat bamboo (according to its digestive tract)
Appendix indeed seems to play a function in immune system, yet they are more often than not responsible for diseases that were mostly fatale before modern medicine. Talk about a badely designed system.
The eye design is optimal ? In which way and for what animal ? Eyes are not the same in fishes, mammals, reptilians, mollusceans. And it is funny to read "optimal" when eyes (as well as other organs) are still evolving
But if you want to speak about less than optimal organs let's speak about our dental organization (that is changing since the 50s)
Or all the armored fishes that disappeared...
Or the Gorgonopsid
Or all branches that disapeared without descendants outside any major geological masse destruction event
And FYI how ID can explain the fact that during embryo development, there are "useless" features that appear and disappear (like a tail for us or legs for the snakes)
From an engineer pov it is a waste of time, energy and means which would make ID a poor designer .....

 

[Buster23]

And no they are not in growing number (prove it by the way)

The list started at several hundreds in 2001, now it is 1,043 as of Feb 2019, hence it has grown and still growing, will update you when new list comes out.

You can download the current list here https://www.discovery.org/m/2019/02/A-Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-020419.pdf

And by the way, they are all brilliant scientists. It does not really matter if they belong to a group or affiliated to think tanks, what is important is the argument/hypothesis that they present, so why discriminate?

 

[Buster23]

I clearly fail to see the link between what we know about the way planets and stars are born and the way species evolve. On one side you have physical mechanisms and on the other biological mechanisms.
You are just using a straw and comparing a nuclear plant with a field of banana.

Isn't it your side of the fence the ones saying that we are all related to bananas? First, your side said that everything originated from big bang and the subsequent forming of the bogus (because chemistry disagrees) 'primordial soup' that supposedly evolved to all plants and animal species today, and when they cannot explain what caused the big bang, they are now proposing that "nothing has caused to become everything" and/or that Multi-verse crap. So, are these science? Man, you need a lot of FAITH to believe that.

 

[Mordoror]

The list started at several hundreds in 2001, now it is 1,043 as of Feb 2019, hence it has grown and still growing, will update you when new list comes out.

You can download the current list here https://www.discovery.org/m/2019/02/A-Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-020419.pdf

And by the way, they are all brilliant scientists. It does not really matter if they belong to a group or affiliated to think tanks, what is important is the argument/hypothesis that they present, so why discriminate?

More than half of them come from other sciences than biology. So they give an opinion. That's ok but don't really make them an authority in the discussed field
And BTW of course their ideological affiliation is important.
Much when a Philip Morris guy says that tobacco is without risk or when Chavez says that communism is successful....

 

[Mordoror]

Isn't it your side of the fence the ones saying that we are all related to bananas? First, your side said that everything originated from big bang and the subsequent forming of the bogus (because chemistry disagrees) 'primordial soup' that supposedly evolved to all plants and animal species today, and when they cannot explain what caused the big bang, they are now proposing that "nothing has caused to become everything" and/or that Multi-verse crap. So, are these science? Man, you need a lot of FAITH to believe that.

My side of the fence is biology. If you want to discuss universe creation ask an astronomist-cosmologist. Period. If you still dont get the difference go back to a real school to get the basics.

Now a few points
We are nit descending from bananas: those are vegetable, a different group from animals. If you mix them, you need again a rewind in school.

Point 2: primordial soup is one of the hypothesis to explain how life appeared. There are others (like extraplanetary inputs)
There are conjecture for both directions and no, chemistry disagree with none. Experiments (something ID proponents are unable to achieve to demonstrate their hypothesis) have shown that both work and are possible up to obtain from separate simple molecules a complex self replicating chain. Again teached in collegue.

All the rest, multiverse, universe relativity, not quantic physic are physic things and philosophical concepts, much like is to believe in an all mighty being. It is indeed a matter of faith as it cannot be proven so far. But it has nothing to do with evolution of species.
You are mixing all issues, not understanding 10% of what you are talking about, not mastering basic concepts and want to discuss science? It is like if a burger flipper wanted to discuss surgery. Coulf be fun to hear but not credible for even a penny....

 

[Mordoror]

About ID and to close the discussion
The whole concept is a fallacy, precisely based on the lack of comprehension
Or in other words, people not understanding some concepts will look for a divine/magical/surnatural explanation. It is not different when humanity didnt understood storm and thunders, volcanoes, germs, earthquakes. They inventef divine explanation to each of the aforementioned things. Nowaday we are back to this. As i said, i blame the educational system and people gullibility. Yes it is easier to believe in a entity X that magically explains everything rather than to sweat your ass off to learn-compilate-integrate several concepts in several fields at once. ID is just the easy answer for lazy people....

 

[Buster23]

About ID and to close the discussion
The whole concept is a fallacy, precisely based on the lack of comprehension
Or in other words, people not understanding some concepts will look for a divine/magical/surnatural explanation. It is not different when humanity didnt understood storm and thunders, volcanoes, germs, earthquakes. They inventef divine explanation to each of the aforementioned things. Nowaday we are back to this. As i said, i blame the educational system and people gullibility. Yes it is easier to believe in a entity X that magically explains everything rather than to sweat your ass off to learn-compilate-integrate several concepts in several fields at once. ID is just the easy answer for lazy people....

Well first of all, even if you seem to be a well-educated science man I believe you do not have the authority to close any discussion/debate about Intelligent Design (or anything for that matter). Perhaps you should actively engage in the debate about ID and I would love to see your objective criticism/review published, and I look forward to see your criticisms listed here https://darwindevolves.com/criticism/ or in other ID proponents works/books.

You keep on asserting that ID proponents (i.e. Behe, Meyer, Sanford, Axe, Egnor etc.) are peddling divine/magical/supernatural explanations when in fact all their works are all scientific and technical in nature, perhaps you are the one who do not know what you are talking about. And I am fine with all your ad hominems on me because I do not claim that I am an expert on the subject in the first place anyway (I already stated this before), though I am urging you to engage the ID proponents instead.

And finally, Intelligent Design (ID) is not an easy answer for lazy people because brilliant scientists (ID proponents) have spent great research time, resources and effort to back up their arguments. The lazy people are the ones who still believe on darwin even if the man and his theory was already repeatedly refuted by modern science.

 

[Buster23]

Point 2: primordial soup is one of the hypothesis to explain how life appeared. There are others (like extraplanetary inputs)
There are conjecture for both directions and no, chemistry disagree with none. Experiments (something ID proponents are unable to achieve to demonstrate their hypothesis) have shown that both work and are possible up to obtain from separate simple molecules a complex self replicating chain. Again teached in collegue.

Chemist James Tour Is Scathing, Hilarious: “Show Me the Chemistry” of Abiogenesis. “It’s Not There.”

"The field hasn’t advanced an inch in 60-plus years. “Everyone’s clueless on this but no one wants to admit it.” Great scientists writing in the highest profile science journals are “lying to you” when they assert otherwise. “Show me the chemistry” of abiogenesis, he says. “It’s not there.”"

Chemist James Tour Is Scathing, Hilarious: “Show Me the Chemistry” of Abiogenesis. “It’s Not There.” | Evolution News

Professor Tour is without parallel. Truly, I’d love to hear from our materialist critics how they would answer any of this.

evolutionnews.org

 

[Mordoror]

Well first of all, even if you seem to be a well-educated science man I believe you do not have the authority to close any discussion/debate about Intelligent Design (or anything for that matter). Perhaps you should actively engage in the debate about ID and I would love to see your objective criticism/review published, and I look forward to see your criticisms listed here https://darwindevolves.com/criticism/ or in other ID proponents works/books.

You keep on asserting that ID proponents (i.e. Behe, Meyer, Sanford, Axe, Egnor etc.) are peddling divine/magical/supernatural explanations when in fact all their works are all scientific and technical in nature, perhaps you are the one who do not know what you are talking about. And I am fine with all your ad hominems on me because I do not claim that I am an expert on the subject in the first place anyway (I already stated this before), though I am urging you to engage the ID proponents instead.

And finally, Intelligent Design (ID) is not an easy answer for lazy people because brilliant scientists (ID proponents) have spent great research time, resources and effort to back up their arguments. The lazy people are the ones who still believe on darwin even if the man and his theory was already repeatedly refuted by modern science.

You have my objections
The ID approach is a lack of understanding fallacy
It is not because you can't explain something that an entity X is responsible for it (see former Thunder and Storm Gods explanation). Period
So trying to push it again and again on things people don't understand is a red herring. Period

For the rest, Behe, Meyer et all have all been rebuked several times. Their hypotheses are never based on experimental approaches nor up to date datas and are always twisting words in the way they see fit
Best example is the basis of Behe ID hypothesis : bacterial flagellum. Behe emitted the hypothesis of an ID because he couldn't explain how a bacterial flagellum (made of two proteic components that cannot work one without the other) could appear through evolution. He just left aside the fact that recent (well recent, they are just dating from 20y ago) that some primitive bacteria flagellum are made of phages that have been replaced by proper bacterial proteins in more modern bacterias.
Your "brilliant" scientists are just pushing an agenda and are not so brilliant anymore if they are unable to do update their bibliogaphy

 

[Mordoror]

Chemist James Tour Is Scathing, Hilarious: “Show Me the Chemistry” of Abiogenesis. “It’s Not There.”

"The field hasn’t advanced an inch in 60-plus years. “Everyone’s clueless on this but no one wants to admit it.” Great scientists writing in the highest profile science journals are “lying to you” when they assert otherwise. “Show me the chemistry” of abiogenesis, he says. “It’s not there.”"

Chemist James Tour Is Scathing, Hilarious: “Show Me the Chemistry” of Abiogenesis. “It’s Not There.” | Evolution News

Professor Tour is without parallel. Truly, I’d love to hear from our materialist critics how they would answer any of this.

evolutionnews.org

See, you are doing it again, quoting the Mickey Mouse site of pseudoscience you venerate too much.

See Miller-Urey experiment (that had its share and rightly so of criticism but have been repeated several time successfuly since)

For the rest, read things about RNA world
It has just be demonstrated as possible : https://phys.org/news/2018-05-scientists-primordial-life-earth-replicated.html

That doesn't mean that the primordial soup is what happened. Experimentaly, it works and could have been what happened. But as i stated earlier there are others hypotheses about how life appeared on Earth (like extraplanetary inputs through cometary impacts that are shown, again recently, to harbor organic chemical components : https://www.iflscience.com/space/bu...ounds-comet-67p-what-philae-discoveries-mean/)

What you fail to grasp is that, as long as we don't experiment the sequence of how it happened, those are only hypotheses but hypotheses that are realistic given the amount of experimental bricks achieved.

ID is not about experimentation, it is just about talking trash on other hypotheses (the footage you quoted is just that, an attack on others people work)
And again, how ID is different from believing in Zeus, Wotan and Thor ?

As i said, you have the right to believe that something/some superior entity had a role in unexplained events leading to the creation of the universe. The Big Bang and expansion of the Universe is not really questionable, what can be questioned is from where came all the material condensated to obtain the Big Bang. Maybe God had a role in it, i don't know. But when things are assessed by experimental datas, bringing ID again is just a matter of either dishonesty or pushing a theist agenda.

 

[Nancy]

In the wise words of a Mexican girl in an ad for Taco shells, "Why can't we have both?" There is no possible way that scientists have proven all life evolved and the stringent adherence to one belief is why you'll prob never work out string theory. I scoff at thee science while using products of science daily.

 

[Mordoror]

In the wise words of a Mexican girl in an ad for Taco shells, "Why can't we have both?" There is no possible way that scientists have proven all life evolved and the stringent adherence to one belief is why you'll prob never work out string theory. I scoff at thee science while using products of science daily.

Define "all"
Life is based on evolution and adaptation
All animals and plants and protozoas and bacterias are evolving or dying, plain and simple
Now, if you want have both, you can conjecture that Life has a Godly origin as in God provided the conditions to have life appear on Earth (and maybe somewhere else)
But that's up to you and it is a faith/belief thing, not a science thing

 

[Mordoror]

Good read that covers most of the things dicussed here

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com