Misinformation is Running Wild (Observable Reality)
Reply to: comm-651240175@craigslist.org
Date: 2008-04-21, 8:30PM CDT
RE: Spontaneous Generation
Why should I have to repeat the exact thing I just said? Spontaneous generation was disproved over 100 hundred years ago. That is a fact you cannot argue.
Funny that you claim spontaneous generation has been disproven and yet you don't even cite recent research. In fact, you cite research that is 150 years old. The Miller-Urey experiment was conducted in 1953 and showed that spontaneous generation of basic organic compounds was absolutely possible. To reiterate, this process took nearly 2.5 BILLION years.
RE: Cambrian Expolsion
Darwin and his contemporaries were aware of this problem with the fossil record some 150 years ago, but they believed that the fossil record had been insufficiently sampled up to that time. Their “belief” was that paleontological research in the future would more adequately sample the fossil record and show it to be more in line with evolutionary theory. They were wrong! Exactly the opposite happened. After a century and half of excavating fossils from the strata we have found the problem to be worse, not better. Contrary to the tree of life depicted in the school books, the fossil record depicts exactly the opposite story. The tree of life is an inverted cone, and not a tree at all.
The stupidity of this is simply mind blowing. I would love to see your source for this claim and a model of exactly what you mean by an "inverted cone". The tree of life is absolutely verified. Please see this video about summation of the evolutionary theory to understand how wrong you really are.
Secondly, while you did state a few facts, you completely misrepresented a lot of things. True, the Cambrian explosion is perplexing, but I don't think you really understand it. For one, it lasted 70 to 80 MILLION years. Second, you make it seem as if every animal ever was alive then and then many slowly died out. The fact is that many animals found fossilized are now extinct because they have evolved. There were no rabbits living side by side with trilobites.
Also, I don't think that www.learnthebible.com, which is where you copied and pasted your information from, is a viable source of information on scientific topics.
RE: The Eyes Have It!!!!
This was really laughable. You link to a creation website that cites other creation science "research" journals (none of which are published as scientific literature) when it comes to creation claims and also cites credible established sources for the facts. Try to find that information anywhere but on a creation science website. If it were true, you would find it everywhere. Here is some factual information about the evolution of the trilobite eye. Why do you think God would have wanted to "create" three different kinds of trilobite eyes and even "create" a trilobite with no eyes at all?
RE: Richard Dawkins - the "god" of the god haters
Richard Dawkins is a hypocrite - by his own knowledge He admits there is a lot of evidence that disproves evolution.
Please present a source if you want to be taken seriously. Richard Dawkins has never admitted to anything like that. He, like other intelligent minds, know that evolution is the true story of how life on earth came to be.
The rest of your post is just too stupid for me to break down why everything you said is stupid. All you are doing is reinforcing your delusion for yourself. Any rational mind can read what you said and understand that it is complete and utter bullshit.
Its really tiring having to spoon feed you dipshits these facts. Evolution is proven. If intelligent design is such a plausible theory, then the conservative judge appointed by George W. Bush in the Dover trial would have ruled in favor of it. The Creationism movement lacks facts of any kind in support of its theory, and thats why it isn't taken seriously. If evolution is so easily disproven as you people claim, then it would be disputed. There is a reason that 99.98% of scientists and the majority of people in hundreds of countries around the world accept the fact that evolution truly was the way life came to be on this planet. That reason is the mountain of factual, testable information that has been proven in every single facet of science in support of evolution.
Science avoids design explanations for natural phenomena out of logical necessity. The scientific method involves rigorously observing and experimenting on the material world. It accepts as evidence only what can be measured or otherwise empirically validated (a requirement called methodological naturalism). That requirement prevents scientific theories from becoming untestable and overcomplicated.
By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the nature of the designer. Without it, design-based explanations rapidly become unhelpful and tautological: "This looks like it was designed, so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this looks designed."
A major scientific problem with proposed ID explanations for life is that their proponents cannot suggest any good way to disprove them. ID "theories" are so vague that even if specific explanations are disproved, believers can simply search for new signs of design. Consequently, investigators do not generally consider ID to be a productive or useful approach to science.
- Location: Observable Reality
- it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
PostingID: 651240175