Evolution is crap! Squawk! (Page 33) BelgianStrider: although it might be a scientifically interesting topic to study your personal "evolution", I have to confess you and honestly admit: it is way beyond my scientific capabilities to make a "review" for a possible doctorate. sorry mate (Edited by BelgianStrider)  MJ59: BS wonders why nobody takes his posts or "science" at all seriously, when the very 1st post on hs other thread states: " Blackshoes: I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended into hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen." 5 years ago There's an own goal straight up regarding any scientific credibility BelgianStrider: this is quite interesting. Though I have to say: I am quite surprised how the US education system can "produce" an electronic engineer or a physician without any scientifically base? I am quite sure and hopeful, I interpret that subject wrongly In Europe, giving applied science without basic science will be seen as complete irrational, applied science is based on science, that is an undeniable fact (ok we don't need to go that deep. though the minimal base is needed (and a little more than necessary does not harm at all). In Europe a physician has the title of "doctor in medicine", he spent 6 to 9 years -depending his eventual specialisation - in the unif to get his "doctorate in medicine". To be just a normal house physician (may be for you a "generalist" ) you do at least 6 years. What is never the case for any engineer in applied science. What about over there????  Enkidu2017: so many agendas so little time ..... no one pays attention to personality biases ? if the the determining factor in any logical end game ............. is how you feel about it ........... well ........... thats adorable ............. can some one post some kitten videos now ? BelgianStrider: many agendas? personal biases? the determining factor in logical end games? ok concerning agendas that depends from person to person and it's possible membership to some organisation. So in fact it has few or no revelation as all those agenda's compensate each other here in this "specific" forum. I will not give an opinion concerning that of "the science of evolution is no science" where there is clearly an agenda. Personal biases, that might be a private matter and it might be better to let it handle by professionals instead of here in this forum . I do accept there are some that have an imperative feeling for imposing themselves as leading figures. Not our problem as long they don't impose their personal opinions. If that is the case, well they have to be consequent and create their own forum. Concerning the determining factor in those logical end games? Yes there is one single determining factor and that is THE determining factor, as Dawkins says, it is the search for the truth that is the determining factor. And in my - not so humble - opinion, because I am quite convinced, you will never obtain it by clear fallacies and contradictions. Again now your choices enkidu  (Edited by BelgianStrider) BelgianStrider: Yes abstraction has some playground, as logic does, pragmatism, spirituality, relativizing etc ... The "mind" as it is, is quite complex - even for a dog, can you determine what it is thinking? -. A result of evolution? BelgianStrider: Kitty sorry i was not ignoring you, Correct we have not the ancient genomes, but it would be surprising that every possible complete genomes is in a global database. That means also that the complete genome of some modern species is not known till now Even if the complete genome of the platypus is known it is not a job of one, two, three to put it at the right location in the phylogenetic tree. Dawkins confessed he was utterly surprised, as a biologist, to see where the whales are classified now in the phylogenetic tree. - though he has no problems to accept it. To be rudely gross and inadequate "amongst the cows, pigs and sheep" as he himself mentions the "fact" that whales are genetically a branch of cloven hoof mammals. Back to our platypus: the fact she is laying eggs and giving milk seems to be a "contradiction" concerning mammals being all vivipara (btw there are fishes that are also vivipara, so it is not a mammal "exclusivity" ). Though: "nobody seems to grasp" the fact an ovipara has to be an ancestor of mammals. (dino, reptilian it does not matter - both were/are ovipara). So, logically, the platypus has just to be the "guy" between ...,(and closer analyse just gives more biological clues in that direction too) We know the tree is not complete and will probably never be, so what? Does that mean some suppositions are wrong? May be not, may be yes, and if that is the case, no problem. That means we have to find a better explanation. Quite simple no? Till now there are, with my limited knowledge of course, no sings the platypus is not a transient specie. So the assumption "can be still valid". And if I remember well, it is an assumption emanating from Attenborough. And what is amazing, that most of the "biological evolutionary predictions" will be/are confirmed by DNA. yeah the whale seems to be an exception that confirms the rule to Dawkins' astonishment. Though a cow is still a land mammal  Concerning the Ascidiacea: the fact that in its larvae stadium it has a chord (thus a "spine" ) and it looses at the adult stadium to be a clear "invertebrate" can only lead us to the conclusion it has to be some kind "between" invertebrates and vertebrates. Why the classification has been made in that way, I suppose DNA was the decisive factor. I have no clue about that question. At least, is it very important where it is classified for it's status as a "transient specie" ? (Edited by BelgianStrider) MJ59: Others on these forums use nothing but creation sites for their "scientific" evidence I accept mainstream science as being factual and not out to deceive me. Being an atheist and having no truck with gods, I cannot readily accept any pseudoscientific "evidence" which has an unashamed bias toward supernatural explanations of natural processes. That's my position and I stand by it! (Edited by MJ59) BelgianStrider: Amen ... Evolution is a biased satanic pseudoscience , everyone knows that Squawk !!!! BelgianStrider: "zeffur: re: "Many discoveries identifying essential purposes for non-coding DNA spotlight how the whole concept of “junk DNA” constitutes yet another major evolutionary blunder.5" I think a more accurate perspective is to ask the question--what have evo chumps ever actually gotten right??? Mostly they have more things wrong than right & they have no sound basis for their myth... (Edited by zeffur)" Says the guy with the extreme arrogance to claim Einstein is wrong and brandishing the "natural universal time". Again, what evidence you bring them, they will refute it categorially and empirically. that is his response on Blackshoes ' copy-paste concerning "junk" DNA Thanks god we have junk DNA, can you imagine what can happen when the our "plant" DNA parts would be activated .. Hmm Ivy lady might be attractive MJ59: Abiogenesis! Junk DNA! Macroevolution!! SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK!! Does not compute, bible says NO! I am right, you are a nitwit, Ima gunna get my gun!! MJ59: "Blackshoes: Ghost,I'm not waiting for anything other than my day before Jesus I'm sure I'll be there soon enough" I'm sure we all wish he receives his heart's desire soon!  BelgianStrider: bwa I wish him still a loooooong life. It's a one way ticket and what about if Jesus is not there at the meeting point but St-Peter at the gate??? | Science Chat Room 3 People Chatting Similar Conversations |