The Evolution Myth

[Robert Newman]

Well, of course, but you still can't deny the fact that ET is being taught in schools and popularised by mass-media as the ONLY one "true" vision of how it all had happened. ET had 150 years to prove it was right and failed to bring out at least ONE evidence.
ID is, as I mentioned, a pretty new thing. Think of Mendel - he was laughed out by the evolutionists at the first line, because he was an augustinian monk etc. It took about 40 years that genetics was accepted as science - the modern biology , medicine would be impossible without genetics.
And then, there are also many scientists who don't support or belong to creation science, but nevertheless saying ET is wrong. If you take out an ambitious figure of Dawkins - how many supporters of ET will still be there?

Yes Andrew,

Excellent !

In fact, Grigor Mendel (the great pioneer of the modern science of genetics) spent his little savings on postage stamps. Why ?

He bought them (together with paper) to send his findings of heredity (obtained by detailed studies) to evolutionists such as Charles Darwin.

And what did Darwin do when he received Mendel's brilliant discoveries of heredity ? He did nothing. Nothing at all. He didn't even reply.

Viva Mendel !

Finally, in the year 1900 three different researchers all concluded within months of each other that Grigor Mendel had discovered laws. The laws of inheritance. Valid for all living things. The result was the science of genetics. The laws of heredity. A brilliant discovery by a great researcher - resisted, in fact, by teachers of evolution theory. But overwhelmingly proved true after a century and more of proofs.

Regards

Robert

[sunwaiter]

But Corno i thank you for remembering everybody that science is not consensus, cause consensus often mean totalitarism. i agree. and what about refusing discussion?

"scientific" (adressed to all parts) evidence is made of so many things. i notices that everybody chooses the "evidence" that suits their theory best and then decide that they can't change their minds again, or at least discuss. if you are definitely SURE that there can't be any discussion, then i will go back to school on my own and leave you with your supreme knowledge.

[Robert Newman]

Sunwaiter,

What is called 'science' these days is often legitimised speculation. Dressed up as fact. Science is the agreement that order exists in the universe and may be studied. Those who subscribe to this view have made the discoveries. The rest is 'pseudo-science', fantasy and downright fraud.

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha sunwaiter,

A true scientist does not have supreme knowlege. I do not have supreme knowlege but by using the tools of Science I can discover and inform myself that which is phony like evolution theory and global warming hooey. I am always willing to discuss things with you and entertain that which you say - I never close my mind to insightful discussion. You are in error if that is what you perceive I do.

Best regards,

CD

[Robert Newman]

Aloha sunwaiter,

Just as our brilliant colleague Robert Newman so cogently elocutes about examining the evidence, scientifically, about evolution, so do I, from a Science point of view, examine the phony evidence of *global warming* and find that it all collapses into a smoldering heap of slag that is as useless as salt that has lost its savor. True Science is not a spectator sport. Like Math, you must actively participate. You must learn how to do the scientific process. Doing science is not the same as simple verbal argument *pro et contra* on a public forum.

The now infamous phrase uttered by the *global warming phony* Algore - that of Consensus Science, is just empty rhetoric designed to fool the foolish. Consensus is not Science - Science is not consensus!

Best regards,

CD

Ps: Sunwaiter, our colleague Andrew Roussak is not being condescending towards you - He is trying to help you.

Yes C.D.,

The seasons are a permanent fixture of nature. Man can of course influence them in many ways (by chopping down forests, polluting the air and the seas etc) but the seasons themselves will always inevitably restore themselves. So that they will not cease for as long as living things are on the Earth.

Nature is wiser than all politicians !!

Regards

[sunwaiter]

Corno:

concerning the global warming thing, i took some time lately to gather all sorts of documents on the thread reserved for this topic. i don't have much time now but i hope i will later. i hope you take everything people can bring in consideration. i'm CERTAIN i do not have the amount of "information" you have. but once more, we often choose to read or listen to what we decided was the right thing to read or listen. that's why i picked info on various internet pages (of various reliability, of course), to try to be as inpartial as possible, and learn things. i can't allow myself to say "i'm right, you're wrong", since it's not the point. and we do share this way of seeing things, don't we?

robert:

what allows you to affirm that man cannot influence cycles of nature in a definitive way?

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha Mr. Newman,

Yep, yep, and yep - Our Triune God will cause our natural environment to restore itself - Maybe one of the restorative processes are Typhoons.

Best regards,

CD

[sunwaiter]

Robert: i mentioned condescendance because of one of you posts, it was not adressed to Andrew. but it's alright.

[sunwaiter]

Sunwaiter,

What is called 'science' these days is often legitimised speculation. Dressed up as fact. Science is the agreement that order exists in the universe and may be studied. Those who subscribe to this view have made the discoveries. The rest is 'pseudo-science', fantasy and downright fraud.

this in itself is a speculation. we have the right to speculate, but we always have to sort things out. contradictions and dogmas make the game very difficult.

lately i read a vulgarisation book about theory of chaos. do you think this kind of book can be kept in the "science" section?

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha sunwaiter,

I admire your striving to become informed and your willingness to share what you have found. But, as I mentioned in a previous posting, one must be able to use the tools of the scientific process. Have you studied meteorology, chemistry, astrophysics, biology, computer science, engineering or mathematics as a student enrolled at a University? You might ask what does that have to do with the matter being discussed...It has much to do with the matter being discussed since all the prognostications and rhetoric are pieced together from disparate findings cross-disciplinarily.

Best regards,

CD

[Robert Newman]

Interesting question Sunwaiter,

No, I don't think anyone would wish to keep a book about the 'theory of chaos' in the science section.

Such things as probability, uncertainty, randomness etc. are of course all products of our ignorance, not our knowledge.

Regards

RN

[sunwaiter]

Interesting question Sunwaiter,

No, I don't think anyone would wish to keep a book about the 'theory of chaos' in the science section.

Such things as probability, uncertainty, randomness etc. are of course all products of our ignorance, not our knowledge.

Regards

RN

i understand, but i suggest that you try reading literature about chaos theory, because it was not written by ignorant people, but by people who study seriously (without, i hope, taking themselves too seriously!). in the same way that Corno smoothly suggests that i study meteorology, chemistry, astrophysics, biology, computer science, engineering or mathematics. i don't have the pretention to master all of these matters, that's why i have always trusted your affirmations when they seemed well grounded. but once again what you learn one day can be proved wrong another day. so it's not the amount of knowledge that matters, but their validity. caution! i'm not saying it's useless to study and learn what centuries of science brought us. but i do with my own means, as weak as they can look to you.

i'm just a little library worm

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha sunwaiter,

It is not pretense to study those fields I mentioned since they are a required course of studies for Astronomy by any accredited University whether it be Oxford, Sorbonne, or Yale University. Those same sub-fields ae also studied by those who major in Environmental Studies or Global Warming Studies(hahaha) at any accredited University. Why accredited? Every Nation wants to secure quality learning facilities for students, therefore most Nations set up commissions to assess the efficacy of the learning programs.

Best regards,

CD

[sunwaiter]

Corno, there are documents that i won't understand without the help of years of studying or learning, but some other documents are sometimes very clear. i just have to read, cause i can read. there lies the main difficulty when i have to sort things out.

[sunwaiter]

right now i enjoy some low income in the library to look for interesting pages. what makes me so interested in this thread is that there is indeed lots of blanks to be filled as to how life was first born.