Science Disproves Evolution - Pahu's Pile of Preachy PooPoo

[Smellyoldgit]

PooHoo is oh so typical of the goat-felching cum-chuggers of his ilk. No matter how clearly or how many times you spell things out, their shit-laden brains have no ability to take in or accept reality. The scientific endeavour deals with advancing knowledge of the natural world. As soon as these cunts invoke the supernatural, they're on their own. They can introduce any amount of unverifiable donkey wank they choose (and they do), and bleat that it's the scientist who has to bail them out by disproving their star-shitting penguins. The fuckheads have no concept of burden of proof. I've only recently bothered to engage this current irritating shit ball coz I've buggered my knee and can't get out pedalling for a few days! Hopefully, pretty soon I'll only have to scan read his horseshit and not have to respond, other to call him the cunt that he so obviously is.

[dogpet]

git wrote

I've buggered my knee and can't get out pedalling

Do you want a cuddle m8?

[Smellyoldgit]

[Sinfidel]

Pahu:

I do not understand how Occam's Razor, the principle (attributed to William of Occam) that in explaining a thing, no more assumptions should be made than are necessary, dispenses with God,

How obtuse and piddly!

[Sinfidel]

Pahu:

Isn’t it absurd for evolutionists to ridicule creationists for believing God made everything out of nothing while evolutionists maintain that somehow nothing turned itself into everything?

Really?....could you quote the evolutionists who make that claim? You see, I always thought that was the realm of Cosmologists!

[Sinfidel]

Creationism as a mental illness

In Cockney rhyming slang, the word ‘believe' is represented by ‘Adam and Eve'. When faced with something baffling, shocking or plain peculiar, you might use the rhetorical expression, ‘Would you Adam and Eve it?' It's ironic, then, that one of the great debates of the day is about the literal truth of the bible story; or in other words, the extent to which we should Adam and Eve in Adam and Eve.

It's a question not just of belief but of denial. The phrase ‘in denial' has become so commonplace it's hard to still hear its power. In common with the ostrich which, as danger approaches, buries its head in the sand, those who are ‘in denial' prefer a false but subjective sense of security to a true but objectively scary reality. Denial brings short term, if illusory, comfort.

Hence creationism, the theory/superstition that, contrary to massive scientific evidence, the world began exactly as described in the Book of Genesis. Instead of deriving from millions of years of patient evolution, Adam and Eve popped out, fully formed, like characters from a Swiss cuckoo clock. Would you Adam and Eve it? Of course not. It's a myth, but like many myths it serves a psychological purpose which is to provide a storybook sense of simple origins, which allays people's fears. Those who believe this myth to be the truth are in a state of denial.

Along with denial, two other factors connect creationism with mental illness. The first is psychosis, which is an extension of denial. If psychosis is marked by the discrepancy between one's personal view of the world and the consensual view, creationism holds onto the personal view at all costs, refusing to accept what is abundantly clear. True, if creationism became the majority view, its psychotic character might be mitigated. Except that this majority view would have no more valence than the belief so widely held about the relationship between the sun and the earth before Copernicus proved how the latter orbits the former, and not vice versa.

Finally, creationism shares with autism an alleged lack of ability for irony. Creationists take the bible story as literally true, unable to recognise that it might be working on those other, mythic levels.

If tests for madness include talking to yourself and looking for hairs on the palm of your hand, then here's another: do you Adam and Eve in Adam and Eve?

Robert Rowland Smith is the author of 'Breakfast with Socrates: an Extraordinary (Philosophical) Journey Through your Ordinary Day' (Free Press).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...mental-illness

[Pahu]

The Law of Biogenesis

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis (b). Others are aware of just how complex life is and the many failed and foolish attempts to explain how life came from non-life. They duck the question by claiming that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.

a. And yet, leading evolutionists are forced to accept some form of spontaneous generation. For example, a former Harvard University professor and Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine acknowledged the dilemma.

“The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position.” George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 190, August 1954, p. 46.

Wald rejects creation, despite the impossible odds of spontaneous generation.

“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” Ibid.

Later, Wald appeals to huge amounts of time to accomplish what seemed to be the impossibility of spontaneous generation.

“Time is in fact the hero of the plot. ... Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.” Ibid., p. 48.

In 1954, when Wald wrote the above, the genetic code had not been discovered. No one could have appreciated just how complex life is. Today, after more discoveries of complexity, the impossibility of spontaneous generation is even more firmly established, regardless of the time available. [See pages 15-22] Unfortunately, generations of professors and textbooks with Wald’s perspective have so impacted our schools that it is difficult for evolutionists to change direction.

Evolutionists also do not recognize:

that with increasing time (their “miracle maker”) comes increasing degradation of the fragile environment on which life depends, and

that creationists have much better explanations (such as the flood) for the scientific observations that evolutionists think show vast time periods.

Readers will later see this.

b. “The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry.” J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1933), p. 94.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Kinich Ahau]

Therefore magic. Hey presto! Abracadabra!

[Smellyoldgit]

Good ol' PooHoo back to his copy-pasta regime.

Biogenesis - The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

Abiogenesis - There is a great deal about abiogenesis that is unknown, but investigating the unknown is what science is for. Speculation is part of the process. As long as the speculations can be tested, they are scientific. Much scientific work has been done in testing different hypotheses relating to abiogenesis, including the following:

• research into the formation of long proteins (Ferris et al. 1996; Orgel 1998; Rode et al. 1999);

• synthesis of complex molecules in space (Kuzicheva and Gontareva 1999; Schueller 1998; see also: "UV would have destroyed early molecules".);

• research into molecule formation in different atmospheres; and
  synthesis of constituents in the iron-sulfur world around hydrothermal vents (Cody et al. 2000; Russell and Hall 1997).

Of course, this tedious twat could search the Talk Origins archive for himself, but he never will.
He seems fine with teh magic, but still having trouble with WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW!

[Smellyoldgit]

Perhaps we can make use of responses from The Thinking Atheists - they got rid of this dolt years ago.

Too bad you are such a fucking idiot you don't even know that abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. Are you as old as your articles ? Maybe you need a Alzheimer evaluation, old Pahu. And when you're out at the doctor, stop by the library, and check out "Science 101", and review the steps of the method, and then come back and tell us what your null hypothesis was, and what your test was, and what data you have. Life is short. Some idiocy, is not worth more than 5 seconds of intelligent people's time.

God (Biblical myth) has never been observed. All observations have shown that reality does not include supernatural forces. This has been observed so consistently it is called reason and leads us to the theory of evolution. Creationism conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that a never-observed god created nature through supernatural forces.

The next batch of shite copied from Walt Brown or any other cretinist web-shite, and PooHoo will be gone.

[Pahu]

God (Biblical myth) has never been observed. All observations have shown that reality does not include supernatural forces. This has been observed so consistently it is called reason and leads us to the theory of evolution. Creationism conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that a never-observed god created nature through supernatural forces.

Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.

Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.

http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.p...=138&Itemid=71
http://www.apologeticspress.ws/articles/1762
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.p...article&id=137
http://www.existence-of-god.com/firs...-argument.html
http://www.existence-of-god.com/existence-of-god.html
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

[AtomJack]

poohoopoof

[Sinfidel]

http://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/201...-cures-cancer/

[Smellyoldgit]

Jesus fuck, you scared the shit out of me - I thought the cretinist dumbfuck was back from the dead!

[Sinfidel]

Where have all the Fundies gone...Trump rallies? It's as dead here as our local Mortuary, but attempting resurrections with humour seems futile. Caught in the downward spiral approaching the end of life, I'm waffling between the Pritikin Diet or the Bacon Cure.