Evolution is a farce: Evidence

originally posted by: borntowatch
Yeah its not a pure pseudo science it does have peer reviews. Though we all know how valid they can be.

95% pseudo science

Hey folks I just dropped by for the humour. Having read the thread I can say:

You are being trolled by borntowatch - just let the thread die and I bet he'll start another thread with an equally incendiary title and start the same insulting rude anti-scientific comments again.

originally posted by: borntowatch
Yes you have linked dubious sites, I could challenge all of them.

You could, but you don't. Yeah I believe that. Astyanax is correct. Responding to you is a waste of time. You deny and deflect but can't dissect, because you don't understand the subject, nor do you care to.

Sorry if you cant win the war.

The war only exists in your mind.

a reply to: borntowatch

You like to continuously state micro and macro are separate, though that is incorrect. They are the same process, evolution, and you are misrepresenting the biological terms. They are merely used for taxonomic purposes. There is no clean division from one species to another. If there was, ligers could not exist.

a reply to: borntowatch

Ahh so now some back peddling . You are inconsistent neighbor.

a reply to: borntowatch

You really are in no place to comment on the quality of data, as you have shown a blind ignorance of scientific method.

originally posted by: Cypress
a reply to: borntowatch

You like to continuously state micro and macro are separate, though that is incorrect. They are the same process, evolution, and you are misrepresenting the biological terms. They are merely used for taxonomic purposes. There is no clean division from one species to another. If there was, ligers could not exist.

And this even confirms some religious/philosphical statements : as above, so below.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: borntowatch

Ahh so now some back peddling . You are inconsistent neighbor.

Are you saying I have denied Micro evolution?

He rejects everything posted as fudged data and smoke and mirrors.

And he holds Kent Hovind in high regard.

Nothing you say will change his mind!

Let me repeat something:

He holds Kent Hovind in high regard.

Kent Hovind.

Is there any more to be said?

Why don't you consider Hovind dubious, borntowatch?

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Barcs

The problem here is these creationists wish us to accept what they say on faith, but want us to prove things 100% to have our POV taken seriously. Double standards much??

Oh thats so wrong, you wish, you wish.

Nobody is wishing anything. You demonstrate precisely this and with great frequency.

I accept that you believe in evolution, I accept it.
Well done, good luck to you and all

My belief is a faith, so is yours.
Your comments indicate that the evidence is lacking, that 100% proof doesnt exist.

No. Unlike theistic world views where the entirety of it derives from one book, one piece of source material but there are 1000 different interpretations of it in the US alone and countless scores if interpretations varying in degrees of ludicrousness across the world, Modern evolutionary Synthesis is based on pure facts and solid evidence. Refusing to acknowledge or understand properly what those facts are does not make them less real. It makes you an extremist.
Evolution is researched and reviewed according to the standards of the scientific method. I can see and have handled artifacts and fossilized remains of people long gone for tens of thousands of years. You can not do that with the bible. Sure there are some instances where the bible discusses real places but it makes the bible no less real than A Tale of Two Cities even though it discusses the political and financial climates of London and Paris during the French Recolution. Real places, real events- made up story. As for the comment on 100%- there is nothing in science, any discipline and view theory law etc... That any scientist will tell you is 100%.

Its not double standards, God is faith, you claim evolution is science. Thats not the same thing, its not a double standard, your argument is foolish.

and this is exactly why it's a double standard, you contradict yourself repeatedly while moving the goal posts time and again to suit whatever it is your peddling from beneath your bridge. You claim evolution is NOT science therefore when you demand cold hard facts to assuage your own desires and refuse to do the same in kind you are being a hypocrite to the fullest extent. Double standard? Oh yes indeed.

Evolution is a pseudo science comparable to astrology,

No, people like Hovind utilize pseudoscience in their attacks on evolutionary theory and the vast majority of science as well. Whether you like it or not, evolution is a fact. The only thing that is actually up for debate us the mechanism behind evolution. The fossil record and calculated mutation rates aren't false testimony and are not misinterpreted. The bottom line is that for those working in science, competition is quite stiff and CIA peer review everyone is looking for holes in the data and logic involved. If there were something amiss it would have been refuted by multiple people working in the same or related fields. People like Hovind don't count as they have no educational background or field training in anthropology or paleontology and is not even remotely qualified to dispute the data. True story.

Do you understand double standard.

Do YOU? It's ludicrous to assume a position from atop such a tall horsy when your entire view of the topic is based on hypocrisy and willful ignorance towards the facts. You make demands and wave it to the side without even looking and proclaim it's the same tired old tripe that been trotted out before. But you don't even know this as you refuse to look at the data presented. It's absolute insanity.


faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
Idiom
in faith
Indeed; truly.
[Middle English, from Anglo-Norman fed, from Latin fids; see bheidh- in Indo-European roots.]

a reply to: borntowatch

No, they are aaying you refuse to acknowledge that there is absolutely no difference between micro and macro except for the scale being measured against. They are exactly the same process. One is a snapshot of a short moment in time the other is a long mural.

a reply to: borntowatch

Ahh the "I can't deny evolution so I will place false distinction in it" gambit. Evolution is neither micro nor macro. It just is. Wither it happens or it does not, and there is ample evidence it happens, and its been shown here.

a reply to: Hanslune

You are being trolled by borntowatch

My point exactly. Thanks, Hans.

Still, it takes two to tango. I can't help but wonder why so many here seem so desperate to squeeze some kind of capitulation out of borntowatch. It isn't going to happen; this person is here, not to promote his point of view, but to have fun at their expense. And he's succeeding; their being right doesn't stop them from looking silly.

I wonder if borntowatch is either a Christian or a creationist. His behaviour seems calculated to discredit both groups by providing the most extreme possible example of Christian and creationist arrogance, irrationality, dishonesty and cowardice.

I think he's a sock puppet for Richard Dawkins.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
This has something to do with the fact that JC was Jew obviously.

Incorrect...

Jesus wasn't a Jew.

originally posted by: Nichiren
Jesus was a 'Judean', not a Jew. During His lifetime, no persons were described as "Jews" anywhere. That fact is supported by theology, history and science. When Jesus was in Judea, it was not the "homeland" of the ancestors of those who today style themselves "Jews". Their ancestors never set a foot in Judea. They existed at that time in Asia, their "homeland", and were known as Khazars. In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a "Jew". The term originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion, just as the term "Texan" signifies a person living in Texas.

In spite of the powerful propaganda effort of the so-called "Jews", they have been unable to prove in recorded history that there is one record, prior to that period, of a race religion or nationality, referred to as "Jew". The religious sect in Judea, in the time of Jesus, to which self-styled "Jews" today refer to as "Jews", were known as "Pharisees". "Judaism" today and "Pharisaism" in the time of Jesus are the same. Jesus abhorred and denounced "Pharisaism"; hence the words, "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, Ye Serpents, Ye Generation of Vipers".

originally posted by: pthena
The original Jews were the people from the Babylonian Captivity who didn't want to return to Judea, because they enjoyed the benefits of Babylonian and Persian culture. They aren't Israelites or Judeans. They are Babylonians. There is no mention of Jews until Esther. They didn't exist until Esther.

originally posted by: sweftl337
The word “Jew” never existed in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic and Jesus spoke mostly Greek and Aramaic. First of all, if we go back some 2000 years, there were no Jews. There was a land known as “Judea” and in that land lived many different peoples. The people of Moses were the Hebrew Israelites – there was no Jew.

Hoffman then takes ‘modern’ Christians to task for furthering the myth of a ‘Judeo-Christian’ tradition: “The Church Fathers knew of no ‘Judeo-Christian’ tradition since Judaism as we know it today did not exist before Christ.

Before Christ, there was only the faith of the Israelites, until by a gradual process, the pure faith of the Israelites was subverted by corrupt teachings. These corrupt teachings were transmitted orally by the Pharisees. Christ condemned these teachings when calling them the ‘traditions of the elders.’” Review: "Judaism Discovered"

Shortly after World War I, Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Company, assembled a staff of experts in Detroit to conduct research on the European Jews who had been entering America in large numbers since the 1880's. Ford further proved that these Jews, using all sorts of crimes while under the cloak of being the Chosen People of the Bible, were rapidly taking economic and political control of America. In the religious field, Ford claimed THE JEWS HAD SECRETLY GAINED CONTROL OF MOST PROTESTANT SEMINARIES AND CHRISTIAN BOOK- PUBLISHING HOUSES and had been able to remove almost all criticism of Jews from Christian literature.

In summing up his findings, Henry Ford stated, "The Jews are not the Chosen People, though practically the entire Church has succumbed to the propaganda which declares them to be so." Ford's book caused a furor for a few years but soon disappeared from colleges, universities, and public libraries and became unobtainable at any price.

The Churches continued to teach "The Jews are God's Chosen People, Israel," and the (by then) Jewish-dominated news media began to refer to Jews always as Israelites. Anyone opposing the increasing Jewish control of the nations was immediately branded "anti-Semitic;" and Jewish dominated Seminaries taught new ministers to quote Genesis 12:1-3 and sternly warn their flocks that anyone speaking unfavorably of the Jews would be "cursed by God." Jewish control of American society, politics, and religions continued to increase.

Absolute Proof More Modern Jews Not Biblical Israelites

"We know that Saul was the first king of Israel and that John was the first man called Baptist, but who was the first Jew? Neither Adam, Seth or Noah are called Jew. Nor were Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. Moses was not called a Jew and neither were Saul, David or Solomon called Jew. In fact you will not find the word Jew in the first eleven books of the Bible. The first time Jews are mentioned in the Bible, is in II Kings 16:6 (and then only in translations revised in the eighteenth century) where we find Israel was at war with the Jews and drove the Jews from Elath.

Isn't it interesting that we can read over five hundred pages of the Bible before we find a Jew anywhere, yet those who call themselves Jew today claim the first five books of the bible and call it their Torah. Do you not find it rather strange that those who claim to have written the first five books of the Bible and call themselves Jew, can't find the word Jew written anywhere in the book they call their own bible, and claim to have written?

It wasn't until the revised editions of the King James Bible, that the word Jew appeared. The word Jew does not mean Israel or Israelite! We must conclude therefore that the first "Jews" were Canaanite-Edomite-Hittite. It is certain, according to the Bible, that Jews are not Israel."

Who was the First Jew?

The late Rabbi Stephen F. Wise, formerly the Chief Rabbi of the United States said, "The return from Babylon and the introduction of the Babylonian Talmud mark the end of Hebrewism and the beginning of Judaism."

The learned Rabbi was correct in distinguishing the true religion of the Old Testament as Hebrewism for it was the religion of the real Hebrews, who were not Jews at all. Judaism, the religion of the Jews, is as the learned Rabbi says, based upon the Babylonian Talmud, which contains the supposed oral law. It was never reduced to writing as part of the Bible. This oral law gradually gained greater force among the Jews than the written law in the Bible, with which it often conflicted in Jesus' day, the Babylonian Talmud was known as the Tradition of the Elders.

This was the religion of the Jews. As the learned Rabbi Stephen F. Wise said, Judaism was distinguished from Hebrewism, the real religion of the Old Testament. Certainly Christianity took nothing from any Jewish religion for we have never taken any part of Christianity from the Talmud. Well then, can it be said we got our Bible or our religion of Christianity from men of the Jewish race? No, it cannot.

The Bible is not a Jewish Book

a reply to: Murgatroid

I would argue that it is indeed you who are incorrect. Your first source, bible believers.org.au is an extremist, anti-Semitic organization. They are Holocaust deniers and make money reprinting and selling "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", a known hoax and other fine works such as Henry Ford's " International Jew". Not a very good or honest source to cite from seeing as how they are anti-Semitic and are attempting to disassociate Jesus from the religion of his forefathers as well as Jesus himself. If you actually read the bible, there are numerous references to Jews and by the Hebrew word that your sources claim never existed. That word is Yehudim. There are 74 instances of this word used in the Old Testament. Also, Jesus was with the Rabbis in the NT, Luke 2:46&47 describes how Jesus became separated from his parents while visiting Jerusalem for Passover at age 12. When they returned to Jerusalem to find him, he was fou d Ina temple school discussing religion with the Rabbis there. Hardly someone who was not a Jew.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Or to the fact that he is presented as such ...
And if the OT seems sometime contradictory or mentions weird numbers, it's also for some reason.
Who has an interest of presenting themselves as the chosen ones and then refute a messianic message of universality ?
Who is whining about crimes caused by ethnic proselytism in order to better enforce a similar policy ?

The usual suspects.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
He rejects everything posted as fudged data and smoke and mirrors.

And he holds Kent Hovind in high regard.

Nothing you say will change his mind!

Let me repeat something:

He holds Kent Hovind in high regard.

Kent Hovind.

Is there any more to be said?

Why don't you consider Hovind dubious, borntowatch?

I like Kent Hovind because of the reaction I get from evolutionists when I use his name.
I figure its a little like holy water splashed on demons in hollywood movies.

a reply to: borntowatch

Any thoughts on Harun Yahya ?

originally posted by: borntowatch
I like Kent Hovind because of the reaction I get from evolutionists when I use his name.
I figure its a little like holy water splashed on demons in hollywood movies.

Do demons splashed with holy water also roll on the floor laughing in Hollywood movies?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your point about the DMS is irrelevant

I think its very relevant as certain conditions are repeated with a few extra conditions and thus a new "illness" is created. Or do you think that there truly are over 1000 conditions of the mind? The classification of the illness is more akin to a spin in rhetoric rather than a classification of a unique scientific division.

they rely on a lot of subjective evidence and statistical sampling of that subjective evidence. Unfortunately it is just a flaw that we need to accept and try to do as much to take the subjectivity out of it, since we are dealing with the very idea of what makes the mind different.

Subjective evidence exactly.

Law definition: refers to evidence that cannot be evaluated.

As we cannot cut a living brain open its hard to see what actual science there is behind it. Again they're still talking about a chemical imbalance.
I dont discount the inroads made by biochemistry, neuropsycholgy etc. I think that a witch doctor with a degree in psychiatry cant give any better therapy than a priest or specialist counsellor.
Both went to some sort of University/College, one eats at the trough of the public health system the other on donations.

And then we have the dispension of pills and trial and error to "get the dosage right."

Eg Xanax used to treat anxiety.

but "make sure to tell your doctor" if you have depression or suicidal thoughts

and then from
www.anxieties.com...

Possible Side Effects. See benzodiazepines-side effects, above. The principle side effect is sedation, but dizziness and postural hypotension, tachycardia, confusion, headache, insomnia and depression also occur.

and yet hypotension may cause anxiety.

All I see is a money making machine with little benefit to the sufferer,

my point above: "And then we have the dispension of pills and trial and error to "get the dosage right." "
This to me is no different than a priest doing an excorcism and casting out demons using different names of demons till he gets the right one.

You say

This is one flaw that I find with psychiatry and psychology, they rely on a lot of subjective evidence and statistical sampling of that subjective evidence.

and then

Unfortunately it is just a flaw that we need to accept and try to do as much to take the subjectivity out of it

How can we accept any of it if we cant take the subjectivity out of it. There are real life conequences in not getting it right.
You cannot build a house on clay. Go back to the foundations. Suggest you look at Thomas Szasz "the Myth of Mental Illness"

But I do suggest you stop parroting random conspiracy theories about psychology and psychiatry just because, currently, their cures aren't really that.

You cant seriously put Psychology and Psychiatry in the same sentence. At least Psychology attempts to use the Scientific Method. And last time I looked Psychiatrists avoid the use of the word "cure" like the plague...they use the catch all word "treatment". At least a parrot can be trained to try new words in its repertoire. (I took that as a compliment by the way)

So answer me this "where did ADHD arise from?"