Evolution Theory is Error

Zillah

We don't. There's no evidence in favour of that though. Let's dismiss it as we do other baseless ideas.

Although the notion of a sentience based upon the universe itself is interesting. Its concept of time, based on the immense scale of the universe, would be staggering.

Although I'm pretty sure the universe is not a complex enough system to model an intelligence such as our own upon it. Galaxies don't interact the way neurons do, the whole thing is essentially flying apart rather than interconnecting the way neurons do.

Speciously,
Zillah

Sea Sharp

Yes of course but whats your point?

God = universe. That'd be the ultimate "supreme being"

That was the best argument I could think of to support a god.
Bull-****, but imaginitive all the same.

AtomicHorror

Gareth37 wrote: »

Scientifically the theory of evolution is incorrect, it was theory put forward by Darwin over one hundred years ago and since that nobody has proved this theory but in fact evidence exists that the theory has no basis whatsoever

No it doesn't. Also, by highlighting theory I guess you're pushing for the "just a theory" argument. I would invite you to read up on the difference between what theory means in science and what it means to normies.

Gareth37 wrote: »

Proteins cannot form in the oceans because the reaction in which two amino acids bond together releases a water molecule. According to the Le Châtelier Principle, it is not possible for a reaction that releases water to take place in a hydrate environment.

Not a part of evolution. Look up abiogenesis. Try researching what you're criticising please.

Gareth37 wrote: »

Neither could they produce a single useful amino acid or protein, nor could they prove – despite thousands of experiments – that mutations can have beneficial effects and cause evolution.

Both have in fact been demonstrated numerous times. Again, try reading up even a little bit on your topic.

Gareth37 wrote: »

Modern technology has allowed humans to discover some aspects of the cell. What was thought to be a murky lump during the time of Darwin has been discovered to be an unimaginably complex system.

It was assumed to be more complex in Darwin's time, but they could not demonstrate this. The complexity of the cell is no barrier to evolution.

Gareth37 wrote: »

Now I am a scientist by profession but science should not be abused in this way.

If you're a scientist, you're a really awful one who fails to do basic literature research before making grand and sweeping statements. You're a scientist who doesn't understand what "theory" means to scientists. These points would make you a really rubbish scientist, if that is indeed what you are.

Take it to the BC&P thread. Please. Because we've defeated both Wolfsbane and J C and now the thread has gone silent.

oeb

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If you're a scientist, you're a really awful one who fails to do basic literature research before making grand and sweeping statements. You're a scientist who doesn't understand what "theory" means to scientists. These points would make you a really rubbish scientist, if that is indeed what you are.

I wonder if he is actually telling the truth. I'm betting he is a computer scientist.

Zombrex

oeb wrote: »

I'm betting he is a computer scientist.

hey! :pac:

CerebralCortex

hey! +1 :pac:

Goduznt Xzst

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Zillah: he may have given up when he saw how funny we all thought this was. Also, love your mathematical definition of life

I think he knows he can't come back here before he can prove he's a scientist. He's probably filling in one of those "Get a degree in minutes" forms on the interwebs as I type.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

hey! +1 :pac:

Hey +1 +1

robindch

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Hey +1 +1

++

<cough>

AtomicHorror

oeb wrote: »

I wonder if he is actually telling the truth. I'm betting he is a computer scientist.

Ugh. They're a strange breed to be sure. I say, if you don't need to wear a lab coat, it's not science! :pac:

robindch wrote: »

++

<cough>

I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I get it.

Not many biologists keep Java and C++ on for second year, but I did. :pac:

Seriously, wth has happened to BC&P? J C has been vanishing off for days on end, the emotes are coming less frequently. Wolfie is getting the odd dig in and then never returning to his points and now the thread is about to vanish off of page 1 for what must be the first time in years.

Have we won?

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Seriously, wth has happened to BC&P? J C has been vanishing off for days on end, the emotes are coming less frequently. Wolfie is getting the odd dig in and then never returning to his points and now the thread is about to vanish off of page 1 for what must be the first time in years.

Have we won?

You just know Fanny Craddock is hovering over that thread waiting for it to fall off page 1 so he can lock it under the cover of darkness.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

You just know Fanny Craddock is hovering over that thread waiting for it to fall off page 1 so he can lock it under the cover of darkness.

Well I can't save it. I posted last. It looks needy when you reply to yourself.

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Well I can't save it. I posted last. It looks needy when you reply to yourself.

I'm quite tempted to start a thread called 'Hello Christians " just to knock it off page 1.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm quite tempted to start a thread called 'Hello Christians " just to knock it off page 1.

Too late; it's gone. I can hardly believe it's happened. :eek:

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Too late; it's gone. I can hardly believe it's happened. :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwEMxYggoKQ

The Mad Hatter

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Have we won?

I wonder how J C's coping with his newfound 'evolutionism'...

As regards computer scientists - I've known a couple of computer scientists who've been creationists.

Speaking purely objectively (as a musician who isn't any sort of scientist) I'm not sure I can see how computer scientists are scientists in the same way that biologists are scientists...

Edit: sorry, did I just make this thread serious?

Goduznt Xzst

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Speaking purely objectively (as a musician who isn't any sort of scientist) I'm not sure I can see how computer scientists are scientists in the same way that biologists are scientists...

How are you defining a computer scientist? I mean what do you visualize when you hear that term?

The Mad Hatter

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

How are you defining a computer scientist? I mean what do you visualize when you hear that term?

Programmers and/or computer...building...people what build computers. Certainly I've never heard of any of this formulating and testing theories craic that goes with the 'official' sciences.

AtomicHorror

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Speaking purely objectively (as a musician who isn't any sort of scientist) I'm not sure I can see how computer scientists are scientists in the same way that biologists are scientists...

If they do research, develop new algorithms or new hardware, then it's science. If they're just code monkeys then they're no more computer scientists than I am.

AtomicHorror

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Edit: sorry, did I just make this thread serious?

Shame is for the religious.

Rev Hellfire

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If they do research, develop new algorithms or new hardware, then it's science.

Chances are then they're mathematicians, not 'computer scientists'.
Its like the way you have Software 'Engineers', if real engineers constructed thing as shodingly as as software developers do we'd all be in serious trouble. "Don't mind that bridge falling down", we're going to to release a patch for it which will let people walk across it without falling soon...

It's just nerd embarrassed about been nerds and trying to dress up their careers up when we all know they're just star trek quoting, socially challenged Aspergers rejects.

jill_valentine

Damn. No love for the computer scientists.

Hivemind187

Can we stop harping on about the definition of a computer scientist and get back to showing Gareth for a charlatan?

jill_valentine

I don't know, I have trouble with social interaction thanks to my newfound Aspergers. :mad:

oeb

I did not mean to slap down computer scientists, I'm a code monkey myself.

I was just taking a jab at the way creationists have been known to say "Well we have a list of a couple of thousand scientists who say evolution is junk. Of course none of them are biologists, and most of them are computer scientists, mathamaticians, economists, psychologists etc. IE none of them have any training or requirement of training in basic evolutionary theory. They can happilly be an idiot when it comes to that subject matter, and still be fantastic at their career. But creationists seem to think that 'scientist' is a magic word that immediatly makes their claims a viable argument.

Also, if you want to be correct, then
Hey +1 +1 is not Hey++ (That only increments it by one). It's Hey+=2. Come on now folks.

sink

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Chances are then they're mathematicians, not 'computer scientists'.
Its like the way you have Software 'Engineers', if real engineers constructed thing as shodingly as as software developers do we'd all be in serious trouble. "Don't mind that bridge falling down", we're going to to release a patch for it which will let people walk across it without falling soon...

It's just nerd embarrassed about been nerds and trying to dress up their careers up when we all know they're just star trek quoting, socially challenged Aspergers rejects.

Were you molested by your computer teacher?

jill_valentine

oeb wrote: »

I was just taking a jab at the way creationists have been known to say "Well we have a list of a couple of thousand scientists who say evolution is junk. Of course none of them are biologists, and most of them are computer scientists, mathamaticians, economists, psychologists etc. IE none of them have any training or requirement of training in basic evolutionary theory. They can happilly be an idiot when it comes to that subject matter, and still be fantastic at their career. But creationists seem to think that 'scientist' is a magic word that immediatly makes their claims a viable argument.

Fair enough.

Reminds me of the time Richard & Judy asked Stephen Hawking if there was an afterlife. My goodness, I've never laughed so hard in my life.

Rev Hellfire

sink wrote: »

Were you molested by your computer teacher?

I still get flash backs...

AtomicHorror

oeb wrote: »

I was just taking a jab at the way creationists have been known to say "Well we have a list of a couple of thousand scientists who say evolution is junk. Of course none of them are biologists, and most of them are computer scientists, mathamaticians, economists, psychologists etc. IE none of them have any training or requirement of training in basic evolutionary theory. They can happilly be an idiot when it comes to that subject matter, and still be fantastic at their career. But creationists seem to think that 'scientist' is a magic word that immediatly makes their claims a viable argument.

They do have a few biologists amongst their numbers (curiously under-represented given that biology is probably the biggest of the three physical sciences) but none of them seem to be doing any "creation research". Or if they are, it's so highly secretive that they never, ever, publish it.

AtomicHorror

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I still get flash backs...

How'd that go?

while (Rev_Hellfire < 18)
{
abuse;
}

I'm sorry, that was terrible.

jill_valentine

Yes, it was, but if it's any consolation, I considered doing something similar.

We are nerds.

...

At least we're not Food Scientists though, right?