arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
dog DNA > dog, cat DNA > cat, frog DNA > frog, spider DNA > spider - Vidqun
Perhaps the most unscientific thing ever written by somebody who claimed to be a retired professional scientist.
My credentials are not important.
You made a very big deal of your credentials on a previous thread. Why are you shy about them now?
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
Cofty, you are so clever.
Thanks. I can't return the compliment.
From a one-celled organism to a human being, I call that improvement.
I don't. I call it increased morphological complexity.
Through natural selection those that die of cancer will take themselves out of the equation. It'll be survival of the fittest.
Very few people die cancer before reaching reproductive age, so cancer has little effect on the gene pool. It is mostly a disease of age as mutations accumulate. As a professional scientist you should know that.
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
According to evolutionists, we are constantly improving ourselves.
No
According to geneticists, we are gradually deteriorating.
No
Were you lying when you claimed to be a professional scientist? If Somebody claimed to be a cosmologist and wrote that the moon is made of cheddar cheese we would not be wrong to doubt his claim would we?
atheist delusion.
just want to know what the ex jw community thinks about this video and also offer my pov.
the video was actually an advertisement on here.
Firstly don't try to choose your beliefs. Commit to examining the evidence and be committed to following it wherever it leads. Expose yourself to the very best arguments against your worldview.
There may be some people who reject god because of bad experiences. I know that isn't true for me. I was a born-again evangelical for almost a decade after I left the cult and I really believed I was saved. I reject faith because of the evidence. To say that atheists reject god because they don't want to be accountable is patronising.
The god of christian theism is beneath me as far as ethics are concerned. I have nothing to learn regarding morals from any christian.
I do think that logical believers have provided reasonable responses to every intellectual objection to the faith.
I have never heard any compelling arguments for theism at all. Not one single scrap of positive evidence. The standard of christian apologetics in general - and on this forum in particular - is dreadful.
On the other hand the evidence that the god of Jesus does not - cannot - exist is beyond reasonable doubt.
Here is a summary of one of many reasons that the god of Jesus is an impossibility...
PS - Ray Comfort is an imbecile.
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
The way you have described it, confirms that cancer has, indeed, always been with us. Am I right?
Yes I'm sure you are right.
On the one hand there is the 4 billion year old imperative for the genes in every cell to make as many copies of itself as possible. On the other hand multicellular existence requires cells to cooperate and delegate procreation to specialised germline cells.
The details are fascinating. Millions of damaged cells are eliminated every day by a process of apoptosis that leaves no trace. Interestingly the process is triggered by the mitochondria who of course were once free-living bacteria...
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
Cancer is an individual cell reverting to what cells have done for 4 billion years. Multicellular organisms have evolved ways of preventing individual cells going rogue.
It takes eight to ten mutations in the same cell for cancer to begin. Oncogenes get stuck in the on position and tumour suppressor genes are locked off. It's a bit like a car developing faults with the accelerator, brake, steering, clutch and ignition switch one after the other so that there is no way to regain control.
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
Vidqun - You really are the stereotypical ignorant creationist aren't you?
Be what you want, do what you want, just don't get caught.
Why do you think that believing in evolution results in a loss of ethics?
Millions of christians accept the fact of evolution and are good people. Many fundies who reject evolution are moral reprobates.
As an atheist/anti-theist I have a reason to be moral that doesn't involve false promises about eternal rewards and punishments.
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
Thanks Phizzy.
Vidqun. You perfectly illustrate the point of the OP. By the way I have shared my knowledge of evolution with both my children and they have turned out fantastic thanks.
On a previous thread you claimed to be a retired professional scientist with a wide range of qualifications. Its a puzzle that you seem to have forgotten absolutely everything.
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
Defending deep will not prevent a good team from scoring. USA are just not very good.
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
"A recurring theme in antievolution literature is that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, and that "spontaneous generation" was disproven, so therefore evolution is false. This syllogism fails, because evolution (that is, common descent and transmutation of species) occurs whether or not life arose by chance, law or design, but there is another more insidious mistake here. It is not true that "spontaneous generation" has been ruled out in all cases by science; the claims disproven were more restricted than that...."
