The Evolution Fraud - 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.
User avatar
By MrWonderful
#15005960
“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

“Darwin’s theory is no closer to resolution than ever.” – David Berlinski, author of The Devil’s Delusion

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”


Followers of Darwin's Tautology are asked to explain:

How a polypeptide of 1,000 amino acid residues in length originally constructed itself using naturalistic means, given the fact that each successive residue was 1 out of 20 different amino acids used in human proteins. 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20 to the 1,000th power = 1 in 10 to the 1301 power
"Impossible" is defined as 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power. Richard Dawkins himself defines impossible as 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power.
Nor does this insuperable number take in to account the folding of the polypeptide.
It doesn't even take in to account the chirality of amino acids, which can be D or L.
We are made of L, the Left-handed variety. 1 chance in 2 to the 1,000th power. But I digest.

There are at least 10,000 polypeptides in the human body so multiply that out as well.

10 to the 50th grains of sand would fill 15 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto.
Pick one grain out of 15 solar system sized spheres on your first and only try. That is 1 in 10 to the 50. You don't get an infinite number of tries. That's not the definition of "one in 10 to the 50th".
User avatar
By Rancid
#15005961
MrWonderful wrote:“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)


Wasn't this guy debunked a long time ago? :?:
User avatar
By Suntzu
#15005962
"Oblivious to continental drift (not a commonly accepted theory at the time), Heribert-Nilsson invokes tremendous tsunamis for the fact that many fossil floras, such as that of the London Clay, consist of species whose modern relatives live in tropical countries far removed from the site of deposition,[5] as G. Ledyard Stebbins writes in an article for The Quarterly Review of Biology in 1955.

According to Stebbins Heribert-Nilsson's final line of "evidence" against evolution consists of an attempt to criticise certain basic principles of genetics, particularly the linear order of the genes on the chromosomes"


Earth is 6,000 years old and created by God in six days with His magic wand. :roll:
#15005964
Suntzu wrote:

Earth is 6,000 years old and created by God in six days with His magic wand. :roll:


Please, let's talk science *.

NOTHING created everything and it turned out so very nice.

“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.” (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley

“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” - Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believes that new scientific discoveries provide compelling evidence for a personal God.

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.” ― Max Planck

"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." - James Tour, Professor of Biochemistry, Rice University


A Matter of Gravity by Professor John Lennox
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l63-fkyDtOc&t=625s
User avatar
By Godstud
#15005991
Another one who disputes science for the sake of his religion, or because he can't understand it. :knife:

Intelligent Design/Creationism rubbish.

Science does not require "faith". It requires evidence. It does not require "God". :roll:
#15006002
Godstud wrote:Another one who disputes science for the sake of his religion, or because he can't understand it. :knife:

Intelligent Design/Creationism rubbish.

Science does not require "faith". It requires evidence. It does not require "God". :roll:


Pay attention. The subject is NOT religion. YOU are the only one to start thumping the Bible.
How unscientific of you, but it is so typical.

To the extent that you consider yourself THE arbiter of science, why don't you posit some, instead of thumping the Bible. Rise up to the challenge of polypeptide synthesis. Answer it, or at least make an attempt. I will correct your errors in the gentlest way possible, without any eyerolls or condescension, such as your side relentlessly displays.

How's this: What is the range of pKa values and why is it that large, or small?

What are the remarkable properties of water? Of human hemoglobin?
How does human hemoglobin defy LeChatelier's Principle? This is a very sophisticated protein.

Show the science you know, to all reading this.
#15006009
Godstud wrote:Another one who disputes science for the sake of his religion, or because he can't understand it. :knife:

Intelligent Design/Creationism rubbish.

Science does not require "faith". It requires evidence. It does not require "God". :roll:

Grow-up Godstud. Keep your atheist religion out of science discussions.
#15006012
Hindsite wrote:Grow-up Godstud. Keep your atheist religion out of science discussions.


Right on, Hindsite, my Friend.

There is a lovely graph showing the percentage of various faiths and their retention rates.
At the bottom of the list is atheism, 30% retention. Atheism has been stipulated to be a religion by the Supreme Court. This is something that makes atheists gnash their teeth in fury.
heh heh


https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2012/07/religious-retention-rates/
User avatar
By Ter
#15006015
@MrWonderful
Your polypeptide reasoning does not hold water for the following reason:
You are looking at something that exists today and speculate how it was able to come about. It is here because it functions. Some polypeptide chains that had a different sequence and therefore had different properties on a 2D or 3D level might have been tried out and failed, thus no longer being present.
Mutations by themselves are blind but a number of evolutionary mechanisms are not, thus eliminating the need to try out all the billions and zillions of combinations you mentioned.

If one looks at something alive today, like a rhino or an elephant, one could ask how could this animal have come about without design ? Well that would be the wrong question. The fact that it is alive today is proof enough that it managed to survive as a species, that it is the temporary end result of its evolution. The fossil record shows us that many, many other species did not survive or evolved into what we now know as the organisms we see alive today.

You might dazzle less educated audiences with the astronomical number of possibilities to build a peptide chain but here on Pofo that will not work.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15006016
Hindsite wrote:Grow-up Godstud. Keep your atheist religion out of science discussions.
:lol: Coming from you that is fucking RICH! Religion does not belong with science, an atheism isn't a religion, either, :knife: so you need to smarten, the fuck, up. Religion has no place in a discussion about science, but fanatics like you always bring it up.

Evolution is one of the most proven scientific theories in existence. People who try to disprove it make themselves look like idiots.
#15006089
MrWonderful wrote:Please, let's talk science *.


First things first.

Before we can even begin to critique any particular scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon, we must first define and limit the subject of discussion.

In other words, what are we talking about?

Are you disputing the existence of evolution as an observed phenomenon? Or are you disputing one particular explanation?

It's not useful or enlightening to do both at the same time, particularly if you are jumping randomly between these modes.

To the basics, then:

Do species become extinct over time?
Do new species arise over time?

If you answer yes to both, then you have accepted the existence of evolution as a subject of investigation.
By Sivad
#15006102
quetzalcoatl wrote:To the basics, then:

Do species become extinct over time?
Do new species arise over time?

If you answer yes to both, then you have accepted the existence of evolution as a subject of investigation.


What? That doesn't follow at all.
#15006103
quetzalcoatl wrote:First things first.

Before we can even begin to critique any particular scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon, we must first define and limit the subject of discussion.

In other words, what are we talking about?




You proceed without having first defined "evolution." It is a very slippery word. Proponents of Darwinism use the most gentle, most limited descriptions when it suits them/you, and at other times, hammer it down to insist that all plant and animal life arose from a single form.

This is terribly unscientific, as are so many claims made in its behalf.

“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.” (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).

Addressing the petty display of vulgarity and condescension by one who will not be named above:

'Anger resides in the bosom of fools." - Ecclesiastes 7:9
Last edited by MrWonderful on 20 May 2019 15:58, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Besoeker2
#15006107
Godstud wrote:Another one who disputes science for the sake of his religion, or because he can't understand it. :knife:

Intelligent Design/Creationism rubbish.

Science does not require "faith". It requires evidence. It does not require "God". :roll:

I suppose the corollary is that faith doesn't require evidence.
#15006109
Ter wrote:@MrWonderful
Your polypeptide reasoning does not hold water for the following reason:
You are looking at something that exists today and speculate how it was able to come about. It is here because it functions.


And the computer you are looking at right now "is here because it functions."

Brilliant. That's Darwinism at its most superficial. Don't ask questions. It's just here, so there.

You don't begin to tackle the original synthesis of the first polypeptide because it is so obviously impossible to explain on any naturalistic basis, much less to explain 10,000 of them.

So you give the most puerile non-explanation possible: "It's here because it functions."
And you pretend to be knowledgeable and wise?


Ted wrote: Some polypeptide chains that had a different sequence and therefore had different properties on a 2D or 3D level might have been tried out and failed, thus no longer being present.
Mutations by themselves are blind but a number of evolutionary mechanisms are not, thus eliminating the need to try out all the billions and zillions of combinations you mentioned.


"Tried out and failed." Well that answers that question of original synthesis of hemoglobin, doesn't it.

"Billions and zillions." My but aren't you sophisticated. How many billions in a zillion?

Ter wrote: You might dazzle less educated audiences with the astronomical number of possibilities to build a peptide chain but here on Pofo that will not work.


Why don't you dazzle this "educated audience" - one of whom is consumed with profanity and anger - and tell everyone why human hemoglobin defies LeChatelier's Principle. Go ahead. Take your time.
#15006110
Besoeker2 wrote:I suppose the corollary is that faith doesn't require evidence.


Nowhere in my original post does the word "faith" appear.
You and your godless friends continue thumping the Bible and attributing your thumps to me.
Very unscientific and dishonest of you. tsk, tsk
User avatar
By Ter
#15006121
MrWonderful wrote:And the computer you are looking at right now "is here because it functions."

How can you give a computer as an example when we are talking about organisms ?
My my, aren't we clever and cheap :)

MrWonderful wrote:And you pretend to be knowledgeable and wise?

I don't pretend to be wise but I am reasonably knowledgeable.
What about you ? Not very it seems, if you try to defend intelligent design.

MrWonderful wrote:You don't begin to tackle the original synthesis of the first polypeptide because it is so obviously impossible to explain on any naturalistic basis, much less to explain 10,000 of them.

This is another attempt, pretty ludicrous, to try and bring back the discussion to your so-called impossibility to have a polypeptide chain as a result of Darwinian evolution.
That peptide chain did not appear suddenly as a product of intelligent design mate.

MrWonderful wrote:"Tried out and failed." Well that answers that question of original synthesis of hemoglobin, doesn't it.

:lol: because you are trying to say that haemoglobin could not have been the result of evolution ?
And don't forget to bring the eye and the wings to the discussion, always a big "winner" when it comes to intelligent design, lol.

MrWonderful wrote:tell everyone why human hemoglobin defies LeChatelier's Principle

I don't think you are capable of understanding that principle, you just throw this name here to make yourself appear knowledgeable. Which you are definitely not if you are a believer in intelligent design. We could say that people who believe in intelligent design are not very intelligent.

You will not convince anyone here to adopt your intelligent design ideas.
But continue your babbling, it is amusing.
#15006130
MrWonderful wrote:You don't begin to tackle the original synthesis of the first polypeptide because it is so obviously impossible to explain on any naturalistic basis, much less to explain 10,000 of them.


This is not evolution.

This is abiogenesis, which is a related but different phenomenon.
By Sivad
#15006131
MrWonderful wrote: impossible to explain on any naturalistic basis


While I would bet my life that the babbitts are totally full of shit on the empirical adequacy of the neo-darwinian model, you're all the way up your own ass if you think a naturalistic explanation isn't possible in principle.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 17

What a grand day it would be if Nadler, Schiff and[…]

Vote For Me You Lying Racist!

As I pointed out, even poor countries like Costa […]

Good morning, lala land! It takes time for a bur[…]

The Irishman...

@BigSteve how can you have an opinion on whethe[…]