• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

20 points which show evolution is not science

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The mathematical impossibility argument amazes me the most.
It's a statement without any real argument.
I'm no expert on statistics & probability, but until they actually employ it, I don't have to do any homework.
 

truseeker

Member
What evolutions won't admit is that "Evolution" is their religion. They believe it on faith just like other religions believe what they do on faith. Neither side can show absolute undeniable proof. So let the evolutions have their religion and the creationists have theirs.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
What evolutions won't admit is that "Evolution" is their religion. They believe it on faith just like other religions believe what they do on faith. Neither side can show absolute undeniable proof. So let the evolutions have their religion and the creationists have theirs.

Man, you guys are too funny. At least you're good for a laugh.
 

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
What evolutions won't admit is that "Evolution" is their religion. They believe it on faith just like other religions believe what they do on faith. Neither side can show absolute undeniable proof. So let the evolutions have their religion and the creationists have theirs.
I worship and supplicate before the holy Aegyptopithecus daily.
aegyptopithecus-zeuxis.jpg
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
What evolutions won't admit is that "Evolution" is their religion. They believe it on faith just like other religions believe what they do on faith. Neither side can show absolute undeniable proof. So let the evolutions have their religion and the creationists have theirs.

This is a lie. Period. It is false. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory. It has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Do you know what science is? Are you in favor of it, or opposed? Do you think that all of science is religion, or only Biology?
 

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
MiniBoglin's posts are consistently ridiculous and PW already destroyed this one but quoting famous scientists out of context is annoying as hell and I'm familiar with these off the cuff quotes:
Richard Dawkins: ‘‘Evolution... hasn't been observed while it's happening.’’
I haven't seen the Bill Moyers interview where the Dawkins quote comes from but I'm sure it's quote mining scumbaggery.
G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed.’’
The full Stebbins quote is actually:

At the outset we should realize that the great majority of biologists accept as demonstrated the fact that organisms have evolved. To be sure, no biologist has actually seen the origin by evolution of a major group of organisms. Nevertheless, races and species have been produced by duplicating in the laboratory and garden some of the evolutionary processes known to take place in nature. The reason that major steps in evolution have never been observed is that they require millions of years to be completed. The evolutionary processes which gave rise to major groups of organisms, such as genera and families, took place in the remote past, long before there were people to observe them. Nevertheless, the facts which we know about these origins, some of which will be discussed in Chapter 7, provide very strong circumstantial evidence to indicate that the processes which brought them about were very similar to those found in modern groups of animals and plants which are evolving all around us today.​

2. Evolution relies upon non-observable time periods
The theory of evolution relies upon vast periods of time, billions or millions of years. However these time periods are non-observable and non-repeatable, therefore falling outside of the scientific method.

Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘… evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of human history.’’
The full Gould quote is actually:



The rest are more lies and quote mining and pathetic attempts to link creationism to prominent scientists.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
What evolutions won't admit is that "Evolution" is their religion. They believe it on faith just like other religions believe what they do on faith. Neither side can show absolute undeniable proof. So let the evolutions have their religion and the creationists have theirs.

Straight out of the mouth of another who is totally unaware as to what the TOE states.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
What evolutions won't admit is that "Evolution" is their religion. They believe it on faith just like other religions believe what they do on faith. Neither side can show absolute undeniable proof. So let the evolutions have their religion and the creationists have theirs.
Actually, my religion is Native American pantheism. Mostly Cherokee, but with influence from the First Nations of the New England area. :cool:

I don't need or use faith when I do science. ;)

wa:do
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
I have to agree... misquoting people is among the lowest of the low in terms of creationist tactics.

And they accuse scientists of lies, when they are perfectly happy to fill whole posts full of them. :slap:

truly pathetic.

wa:do
 

evolved yet?

A Young Evolutionist
Speciation is non observable. I spend my life in nature i am a botanist student, if you actually got out into the real world like me you would see evolution is not happening. But of course most evolutionists just sit behind there computer all day or in a lab. Reality is in nature, and macroevolution the theory that species evolve into different species can not be observed it simply is not happening, it is not natural and it is not scientific. Evolution it is a theory which can not be tested, repeated or observed... it is not based on science.
Observed Instances of Speciation
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
i do not plagiarize..
Sure you do. And you know it.


i write all the stuff myself, i spend some nights doing this on paper then i type it to word when i can get to a computer. i am well read. my brother also writes articles he wrote the one in the OP, he is an author he writes books. you wont find the articles on websites. just another forum he pasted it on. its all original stuff.
When you don't give credit to the author, letting the reader believe you wrote it, it is plagiarism, plagiarist.
 

Gunfingers

Happiness Incarnate
That would make it four words. :(

Also, i love that reason #9 that evolution is not science is simply "evolution is not science".
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
The mathematical impossibility argument amazes me the most.
It's a statement without any real argument.
I'm no expert on statistics & probability, but until they actually employ it, I don't have to do any homework.

The funny part about it is that the theory of evolution does not depend on a requisite mathematical probability. It comes from examining nature.

Currently the statistical probability of evolution indicates a probability of 1.
 

Krok

Active Member
Originally Posted by MiniBoglins http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...tion-not-science-post2232099.html#post2232099
"in other words you have no qualifications and you just spend your life behind a computer this is the case for most evolutionists, sorry but you have no qualifications and you have never actually seen or studied anything in nature, why should anyone listen to your opinions on this topic? You have no experience in the real world. considering that i have seen many things face to face in nature which you will probably never see in your life...my viewpoint here is more reliable, i was in australia last year i spent 1 week observing life in a swamp ecosystem. have you done this? listen i respect you and your beliefs.. im just saying if you actually get out into the world like i have, i have to study over 40 plant species everyday.. you will see none are evolving...too much time behind a computer for you it has cut you off from reality..." OMG, one whole week in Australia observing life in a swamp ecosystem! What do we call you now? Professor Doctor of all that science has to offer? Or maybe just "self-appointed expert"? I hope you realise that most people here actually studied for a lot more than 1 week and did it at an actual universities?
 
Top