The Evolution Fraud - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15006935
ingliz wrote: "It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter."

Charles Darwin from a letter to American botanist Joseph Hooker (29 Mar 1863)


:lol:



LOL yourself:


“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.” (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
User avatar
By ingliz
#15006939
MrWonderful wrote:LOL yourself

The theory of evolution, both currently and as first conceived by Darwin and Wallace, neither provides, nor requires, an explanation for the origin of life.


:lol:
User avatar
By Rancid
#15006942
ingliz wrote:The theory of evolution, both currently and as first conceived by Darwin and Wallace, neither provides, nor requires, an explanation for the origin of life.


This 100%
#15006951
"A>B>C>D" is all you need for "evolution." It's SOOO simple, isn't it.

“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.” (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
User avatar
By Rancid
#15006955
MrWonderful wrote:“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.” (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)


A healthy question to ask. I don't see the problem here?

Further, what's the claim here?

MrWonderful wrote:"A>B>C>D" is all you need for "evolution." It's SOOO simple, isn't it.


What's the claim here?

You're a being very vague.
#15006956
annatar1914 wrote:It's the uiniverse's intelligibility that presupposes a Creator Who is in fact Intelligence Himself. Once you go down the path to random Chaos somehow magically resolving itself into Order, one's own intelligibility becomes after a while madness, nonsense.

No, we have evolved precisely to find the universe intelligible (understandable). That is how we survive: by understanding the universe, and thus being able to predict what will happen. The benefit of science is that it makes understanding and thus prediction much more reliable.
By Hindsite
#15006963
Evolution is a Proven Fraud

A legitimate scientific theory doesn't need to fake anything.

DNA proves Intelligent Design...Darwin was Wrong!

This video is not about any religion. It is your choice to determine the Intelligent Designer.
Could that designer be God?


Hear expert testimony from leading evolutionary scientists from some of the world's top universities:

• Peter Nonacs, Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, UCLA
• Craig Stanford, Professor, Biological Sciences and Anthropology, USC
• PZ Myers, Associate Professor, Biology, University of Minnesota Morris
• Gail E. Kennedy, Associate Professor, Anthropology, UCLA

A study of the evidence of vestigial organs, natural selection, the fifth digit, the relevance of the stickleback, Darwin's finches and Lenski's bacteria—all under the microscope of the Scientific Method—observable evidence from the minds of experts.

Animals that Defy Evolution – Intelligent Design

These animals had to have an intelligent designer
#15006978
@Truth To Power ;

No, we have evolved precisely to find the universe intelligible (understandable).


That's a philosophical begging of the question; somehow, magically stuff happened over time, randomly, and produced intelligence. I see there's no looking outside your closed circle for you at this time.


That is how we survive: by understanding the universe, and thus being able to predict what will happen. The benefit of science is that it makes understanding and thus prediction much more reliable.


That's giving Science the attributes and expectations of a Religion, which is why I call most of what passes for Science today ''Scientism''.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15006989
“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.” (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
@MrWonderful Context is important. You thinking this related to Evolution is mere fancy, and dishonest, to say the least.

Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."[7] He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."
#15007147
annatar1914 wrote:That's a philosophical begging of the question;

Nope. It's just taking the question seriously. Assuming human intelligence is NOT an evolved characteristic begs the question.
somehow, magically stuff happened over time, randomly, and produced intelligence.

There was no magic involved. You are just makin' $#!+ up again.
I see there's no looking outside your closed circle for you at this time.

If by "closed circle" you mean facts and logic, no, I don't propose to just make $#!+ up, as all claimants of divine revelation have done.
That's giving Science the attributes and expectations of a Religion,

Garbage. Religion by definition invokes the supernatural, science abjures it.
which is why I call most of what passes for Science today ''Scientism''.

Which it isn't.
#15009765
Haeckel's drawings were a scientific fraud perpetrated in the name of Darwinian Evolution around 1859. They were challenged in court and found to have been faked. Nevertheless, "scientists" in the name of "thinking logically," continued to present them as "evidence" or "proof" of evolution through the 20th century! Such is the fraudulent nature of science when it is highly politicized by those who feel themselves "booted and spurred," in the words of Thomas Sowell, to rule over you and order you how and what to think.

Haeckel’s drawings ostensibly demonstrating “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”
They were challenged in 1868 by Ludwig Rutimeyer in Archiv für Anthropogenie immediately after their publication. Some biology texts published as late as 2001, such as one by Bruce Alberts, former head of the National Academy of Sciences, showed this fraud.

Famed Harvard evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson wrote, for example: “It is now firmly established that ontogeny [development of the individual] does not repeat phylogeny [development of the race]”
In any case, Haeckel had a passion for promoting the recapitulation theory, which he termed “the fundamental biogenetic law.” And, as one writer has noted:
“To support his theory, however, Haeckel, whose knowledge of embryology was self-taught, faked some of his evidence. He not only altered his illustrations of embryos but also printed the same plate of an embryo three times, and labeled one a human, the second a dog and the third a rabbit ‘to show their similarity’” (Bowden 1977, 128).
Haeckel was exposed by professor L. Rutimeyer of Basle University. He was charged with fraud by five professors, and ultimately convicted in a university court. During the trial, Haeckel admitted that he had altered his drawings, but sought to defend himself by saying:

“I should feel utterly condemned and annihilated by the admission, were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological, and embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored, schematized and reconstructed” (Bowden, Malcolm. 1977. Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications, p. 128)
User avatar
By ingliz
#15009774
MrWonderful wrote:a scientific fraud

If one is being pedantic, but connections between ontogeny and phylogeny can be observed in most species - Phylogeny, when all is said and done, is a succession of ontogenies.


:)
User avatar
By Ter
#15009789
MrWonderful wrote:Haeckel's drawings were a scientific fraud perpetrated in the name of Darwinian Evolution around 1859. They were challenged in court and found to have been faked.


While it has been widely claimed that Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, there does not appear to be an independently verifiable source for this claim

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel

MrWonderful wrote:“To support his theory, however, Haeckel, whose knowledge of embryology was self-taught, faked some of his evidence. He not only altered his illustrations of embryos but also printed the same plate of an embryo three times, and labeled one a human, the second a dog and the third a rabbit ‘to show their similarity’” (Bowden 1977, 128).

The veracity of this accusation is doubtful.
By the way, if you give a reference like "(Bowden 1977, 128)" you should also tell us where that citation can be found so we can check it.
By Rich
#15009800
So we have difficulty believing in something, in particular, vast almost unimaginable amounts of something, just manifesting out of nothing. So Judaism says that the universe was created by a super Jew loving intelligence. Samaritianism says that the universe was created by a super Israelite loving intelligence. The Muslims say that the universe was created by a super Arab loving intelligence. The Christians say that the universe was created by super Jew loving intelligence, that became so pissed off with the behaviour of the Jews, particular when they framed up and murdered his only begotten son, that he rescinded their privileged status and gave his covenant to the trust of Europeans to spread around the world.

Now some might say getting this super intelligence out of nothing is even more improbable than getting the universe out of nothing. But the bigger problem with these theories is that they ignore the miracles of European civilisation over the last 600 years. I would suggest that the Christians are half right. That God always loved the Europeans never the Jews. That Greater European civilisation, which includes the fertile crescent and North Africa and many Semitic civilisations has always been the favourite of God. Unlike the Nazis I believe God loves all the European peoples, Germanic, Celtic, Slav and Ashkenazi and others. That he loved the Semites until they took up false Zoroastrian religion.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15009832
Rich wrote:that became so pissed off with the behaviour of the Jews, particular when they framed up and murdered his only begotten son, that he rescinded their privileged status and gave his covenant to the trust of Europeans to spread around the world.


Depends on who's account you follow.

Jews blame the Romans for killing Jesus.
Christians blame the Jews.
Historians tend to side with the Jewish account of the killing of Jesus.

The reason the Christians blamed Jews instead of Romans is because they were trying to convert Romans to the new religion.
By Hindsite
#15010056
Rancid wrote:Depends on who's account you follow.

Jews blame the Romans for killing Jesus.
Christians blame the Jews.
Historians tend to side with the Jewish account of the killing of Jesus.

The reason the Christians blamed Jews instead of Romans is because they were trying to convert Romans to the new religion.

It was the Jews that turned Jesus over to the Roman governor to be put to death. The Roman governor didn't find any fault in Jesus and tried to just have him flogged as punishment to satisfy the Jews and then release him. However, the crowd of Jews shouted and demanded that Jesus be crucified. It was only then that the Roman governor ordered the crucifixion to prevent a riot and restore peace.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15010079
Hindsite wrote:It was the Jews that turned Jesus over to the Roman governor to be put to death. The Roman governor didn't find any fault in Jesus and tried to just have him flogged as punishment to satisfy the Jews and then release him. However, the crowd of Jews shouted and demanded that Jesus be crucified. It was only then that the Roman governor ordered the crucifixion to prevent a riot and restore peace.


That's the Christian account.

The Jewish and historical evidence say otherwise. Christians are the original anti-semites.
#15010167
ingliz wrote:If one is being pedantic, but connections between ontogeny and phylogeny can be observed in most species - Phylogeny, when all is said and done, is a succession of ontogenies.


So lying and committing fraud is just fine, isn't it, because after all, you Darwinists are all so VERY smart and your intentions are what really count, not facts, not science, not reality. When all is said and done, more is said than done, emphatically by the Left.
By Hindsite
#15010231
Rancid wrote:That's the Christian account.

The Jewish and historical evidence say otherwise. Christians are the original anti-semites.

The original Christians were mainly Semites that believed Jesus was the Christ.
HalleluYah
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 17
Election 2020

You should know by now that you can't belive that[…]

https://www.thewhitehouseinsider.com/[…]

To start we need term limits not only for elected[…]

Well, you're still running away from the obvious,[…]