Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
'This is not intelligent design'
04-28-2010, 09:51 AM, (This post was last modified: 07-13-2010, 11:17 PM by ---.)
#1
Brick  'This is not intelligent design'
Quote:Published Sunday, April 25, 2010 in Opinion
'This is not intelligent design'

Darwinian evolutionists now belong to the category of phrenologists and flat-earthers. You don't have to be a creationist to realize that gradual evolution simply could not have occurred as Darwin proposed.

Swedish scientist Loren Lovetrup (not a creationist) says: "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science," adding that "evolution is anti-science" and "false."

Biochemist Michael Behe has shown in his book, "Darwin's Black Box," that complex systems exist which simply could not have evolved gradually. He calls this "irreducible complexity" -- that is, every part must be in place at the same time for it to work.

Fossil expert and evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change."

Renowned astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, in "The Mathematics of Evolution," said, "The speculations of the 'Origin of Species' turned out to be wrong,"

Respected French scientist Pierre Grasse called Darwinian evolution "a pseudo-science." A.E. Wilder-Smith, possessor of three doctorates, calls Darwinism "impossible." Dr. H.S. Lipson, an agnostic physicist, wrote, "To my mind, the theory (evolution) does not stand up at all." Mathematician David Berlinski says many of his fellow mathematicians ridicule Darwinism and literally hoot at its claim to be science. Sir Francis Crick, discoverer of DNA, now favors intelligent design. Sir Karl Popper declares that Darwinism is "a metaphysical programme," not science.

Die-hard deniers of design must tell themselves: "This looks like design, it acts like design, but it can't be design. That would imply a designer. Repeat after me, 'This is not intelligent design, this is not intelligent design, this is not intelligent design.'"

Richard Kirby

Newnan
http://www.times-herald.com/opinion/This-is-not-intelligent-design-1101377
Reply
04-28-2010, 09:21 PM,
#2
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
It is a fraud but they couldn't go from god created all to the truth, would have connected too many dots.

love the idea our cerebral cortex, which gives us most of our speech, higher intelligence and memory was a cancer that developed and was breed into our future offspring!!!!

an abnormality which turned us from animals to beings...

beyond darwinism is a lot of fucked up idea answering the oldest question for those who don't know the answer.... Where did we come from?

and as for it going the path of the flat earth, it's interesting how smug some are today when what they hold to be true is also a farce!

good thing though bout those who have such theories or beliefs re any of the not meta sciences, is that they will be dead long before they are proven wrong, as we so quickly accept something as fact if it comes from one who is "supposed" to know, i mean we still are debating if there is intelligent life outside of the world?!Undecided
Remember Knowledge is the only thing THEY can't take from you, and Knowledge is Know how, and Know how is Power!!!

Live long and Prosper!!!! Have a plan beyond words, and worry not of why the storm is coming as to how you're going to survive in it!!!!

Deathanyl @gmail!!!!!!
Reply
04-28-2010, 09:27 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-28-2010, 09:27 PM by ---.)
#3
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
Quote:beyond darwinism is a lot of fucked up idea answering the oldest question for those who don't know the answer.... Where did we come from?

Agreed. I think the 23rd fused chromosome of the homo sapien sapien is pretty mysterious.


too much smugness in the world.

Thing that really irks me about an apocalypse is that should me and mine survive - it is going to be the previously smug prigs that are going batshit crazy and trying to steal my supplies. it truly annoys me.
Reply
04-28-2010, 10:29 PM,
#4
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
(04-28-2010, 09:27 PM)nik Wrote: Thing that really irks me about an apocalypse is that should me and mine survive - it is going to be the previously smug prigs that are going batshit crazy and trying to steal my supplies. it truly annoys me.

hence a couple of those fancy tazer shells and new workers to help carry / defend your supplies... if your place is known as secure the outside remaining forces will leave it alone, if your not buff enough to defend then do the second thing that comes natural to every creature Hide you and yours and the supplies, and case a new location now that you'd annex and can defend... a bit of planning goes a long way and just surviving it will be a feat.

Most of the smug ones now will be dead then as they didn't believe and felt humanity was indestructible, and those like me who are Smug now (confident i prefer) who survive will not be out trying to recreate the old system of conquering, were enlightened now, it is hardly likely we'd lose the light, now in a few generations though.... hence it's important to keep books and such for future generations, and early books to foster a growth of reading ability... "lest we forget" and fall prey to old mistakes next time around.
Remember Knowledge is the only thing THEY can't take from you, and Knowledge is Know how, and Know how is Power!!!

Live long and Prosper!!!! Have a plan beyond words, and worry not of why the storm is coming as to how you're going to survive in it!!!!

Deathanyl @gmail!!!!!!
Reply
04-28-2010, 10:31 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-29-2010, 12:00 AM by ---.)
#5
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
I have CS a bokken and a webley catapult and a steel ball bearing and 20/30 vision
Reply
04-28-2010, 10:44 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-28-2010, 10:46 PM by Hans Olo.)
#6
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
Interesting topic, and the article is not very deep. It touches a bazillion of fascinating topics and knots them together with a few clever quotes from people with "three doctorares" without further explanation.

Another theory is interventionism. Check out Lloyd Pye for an introduction:
Everything you know is wrong
Reply
04-28-2010, 10:54 PM,
#7
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
ouch Hans - let's steer of Pye just for the time being - the article as you point out has a many fascinating topics and clever quotes of itself.

i feel the starchild skull and Lloyd Pye ex intel man would be murking water a little - let us wait why not until the new rounds of DNA test results on the skull come backlater this year?
Reply
04-28-2010, 11:44 PM,
#8
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
Nik, do I tell you what to post? Let me bring up Pye and I let you make your jokes about balls of steel, how about that.

Back to topic, Lloyd Pye talks about the 23 chromosomes you brought up, in fact he was the first guy I heard talking about that. Do you know anyone else who does? I'd be very interested.
Reply
04-28-2010, 11:56 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-28-2010, 11:59 PM by ---.)
#9
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
it was an unfortunate Freudian typo that you have drawn my attention to. thank you - i meant steel ball bearings

you can post whatever you wish Hans but as the OP I myself like the given examples in the article as they are of repute and the star child skull in my estimation detracts from their clarity and force as it not proven authentic presently and no one knows what the added silica to bone ratio means - whether it is because it is genuine or fake etc.

Indeed Pye does mention the 23 chromosomes but I have seen it elsewhere mentioned too in connection the number 23 in general and also in rumourings about Rn- blood and et theories.
but you know I'm well meaning, right?
Reply
04-29-2010, 02:23 PM,
#10
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
Well I didn't even bring up the Star Child, and in many of Pye's lectures he doesn't bring it up either. He talks about much more than that. But he does talk about interventionism, a theory that is very releveant to what you're saying, and to the examples listed in the article. In fact, Pye elaborates on all the points mentioned in the article. Guys other than Nik, check it out.

Who else talks about the 23 chromosomes? Not in relation to numerology BS but in relation to genetics, that's what I'd like to know.

Btw, Freudian typo, yeah right :-D
Reply
04-29-2010, 03:07 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-29-2010, 03:09 PM by ---.)
#11
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
whatever Hans. Have a nice day.
btw. intelligent design and interventionism are not mutually inclusive.
Reply
05-01-2010, 12:07 AM, (This post was last modified: 05-01-2010, 12:19 AM by rsol.)
#12
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
"Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."
Francis Crick

im not sure where you get that he was a creationist. maybe a creationist told you that....

A.E. Wilder-Smith is highly recognised in creationist circles. just nowhere else however people do know of him
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
http://ncse.com/book/export/html/1447

I'm not going any further as there is plenty to chew on for now. be that as it may. Its a bit rich for pseudo-scientists to be labelling anyone else a pseudo scientist. carving out human footprints in order to "prove" we walked with dinos does not make mr wilder a reliable source. whos next Kent Hovind?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfZFsXfCy6s&feature=channel
Reply
05-01-2010, 09:19 AM,
#13
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
(05-01-2010, 12:07 AM)rsol Wrote: "Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."
Francis Crick

im not sure where you get that he was a creationist. maybe a creationist told you that....

A.E. Wilder-Smith is highly recognised in creationist circles. just nowhere else however people do know of him
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
http://ncse.com/book/export/html/1447

I'm not going any further as there is plenty to chew on for now. be that as it may. Its a bit rich for pseudo-scientists to be labelling anyone else a pseudo scientist. carving out human footprints in order to "prove" we walked with dinos does not make mr wilder a reliable source. whos next Kent Hovind?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfZFsXfCy6s&feature=channel

since when did you evolve daily mail tactics, rsol? was it a birthday gift from god?

re: francis crick

Quote:Sir Francis Crick, discoverer of DNA, now favors intelligent design.

surely the relevant detail here is the chronology of the quotes.

"creationist" can be used quite easily as a combative slur much as "conspiracy theorist" can.

To my mind, the issue here is clear sight that "Origin of the Species and the Preservation of the Favoured Races" by Charles Darwin is a flawed theory. Not enough Fallibilism given to the subject. It is the doctrine yes?
Reply
05-01-2010, 10:11 AM,
#14
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
(04-29-2010, 03:07 PM)nik Wrote: whatever Hans. Have a nice day.

Thank you, and you have a nice day too Smile

Quote:btw. intelligent design and interventionism are not mutually inclusive.

I think the most advanced stance one can have regarding dialectic black vs. white debates like this is that both sides are full of shit and then point out all the errors in the theories of both sides. That way you can be the only one being right and have everyone else against you. It's so much more fun than to just join one side of the debate. That's why I like interventionism. They say someone at some time intervened.. messed with our genetics. It doesn't rule out evolution on a smaller level but it explains so many of our mysteries. The megaliths, the pyramids, 23 chromosomes, Atlantis, the Genesis, miracles. It's a hoot!

In fact, I don't even have an opinion on this. I'm not educated enough to afford one. But I can show anyone who thinks they have one is full of shit Smile
Reply
05-01-2010, 10:20 AM,
#15
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
I don't follow your clearly logical progression that having an opinion makes one full of shit. That must be my own lack of education Icon_biggrin

I agree with everything you said about the plausibilty of an interventionist gene-sis project.

However - the OP is entirely of pointing the flaws in Darwinist doctrine without getting embroiled in a who what where debate, I felt/feel/thought/think.

Also have a nice day today!

(05-01-2010, 10:11 AM)Hans Olo Wrote:
(04-29-2010, 03:07 PM)nik Wrote: whatever Hans. Have a nice day.

Thank you, and you have a nice day too Smile

Quote:btw. intelligent design and interventionism are not mutually inclusive.

I think the most advanced stance one can have regarding dialectic black vs. white debates like this is that both sides are full of shit and then point out all the errors in the theories of both sides. That way you can be the only one being right and have everyone else against you. It's so much more fun than to just join one side of the debate. That's why I like interventionism. They say someone at some time intervened.. messed with our genetics. It doesn't rule out evolution on a smaller level but it explains so many of our mysteries. The megaliths, the pyramids, 23 chromosomes, Atlantis, the Genesis, miracles. It's a hoot!

In fact, I don't even have an opinion on this. I'm not educated enough to afford one. But I can show anyone who thinks they have one is full of shit Smile
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Brain scanners to be used to 'design' political candidates TriWooOx 11 2,914 05-14-2010, 10:09 PM
Last Post: h3rm35
  'doomsday' Vault Design Unveiled TriWooOx 6 1,891 02-26-2008, 05:29 PM
Last Post: TriWooOx
  The human race will one day split into two separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass o hardboiled11 13 2,666 10-30-2007, 03:12 PM
Last Post: beyond
  New Nuclear Warhead Design For Us TriWooOx 0 569 03-05-2007, 12:37 PM
Last Post: TriWooOx

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)