Comments by "pinball1970" (@pinball1970) on "ABC News" channel.

@vashmatrix5769 I put all the comments together in lunch break at work. Job lot.
1
@vashmatrix5769 Ok please cite the scientific organisation that rejects TOE
1
@vashmatrix5769 Well no, my point was that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that TOE is the only explanation of speciation of life on earth. There is not one serious organisation that thinks otherwise.
1
@vashmatrix5769 If you know of an organisation that rejects the theory then cite it.
1
@vashmatrix5769 No, the science is accepted because it has been verified. TOE was accepted by the scientific community within about 15 years, so by the 1870s. All of the studies since then have supported the main tenets since then. Darwin was wrong about genes, Mendel worked that out.
1
@vashmatrix5769 A hypothesis is not a scientific Theory, these things are not interchangable. What do you think Darwin was wrong about specifically? Second, what do you think the body of the theory was then and now?
1
@vashmatrix5769 Does "Origin" read like a hypothesis to you? You have read it yes?
1
@vashmatrix5769 I keep asking you to name a scientific organisation that denies TOE. Do you have one?
1
@vashmatrix5769 Yes I know the Title I have a copy. Are you trying to tell me that 1850s English intelligentsia were more bigotted than today? Well yes, they were, by today's standards, is that really a suprise to you?
1
@vashmatrix5769 "we" have not talked about 5 or 7 types at all. I am referring to the TOE. Todays modern synthesis is obviously more advanced than Darwins day. Hopefully this is also not a suprise to you.
1
@vashmatrix5769 Only Creationism talks about the micro Vs macro argument. There is no such issue in the serious scientific community.
1
@vashmatrix5769 Forth time of asking, please cite a scientific organisation that dismisses TOE. Just one.
1
@vashmatrix5769 Scientists do not talk like that, if you are interested in physics and the beginning of the Universe or Abiogenesis than start a new thread. I have told you three times now, this Biological Evolution. There is no debate in the scientific community with respect to it's validity. Only creationists want to pretend there is a debate.
1
@vashmatrix5769 That is NOT abiogenesis is, stop spreading stupid creationist nonsense.
1
@vashmatrix5769 I have answered all of your questions you are just not understanding any of the answers. There is no debate in the serious scientific community regarding TOE. A scientific Theory is NOT just a hypothesis, just look it up I am not hand holding you through Google. You claim that 1850s Intelligentsia was bigoted? Including Darwin? Of course it was by today's standards why is this a suprise to you?
1
@vashmatrix5769 Since I have asked you four times to cite just one scientific institution that dismisses TOE without reply I will assume you cannot provide one. Not surprising since every respectable organisation on the planet released a statement regarding TOE. I will summarise for you. TOE is the only explanation of the speciation of life on earth. Creationism, creation science and ID (cdesign) is not science and just religion in disguise. You can pretend there is a debate in science but there is not.
1
@vashmatrix5769 “@pinball1970 If you want to keep following an appel to authority fallacy,” One of YOUR first references was a Harvard PhD what are you talking about so that was the first thing you did. You obviously do not understand how science works. There are no authorities in science, there are experts. If you think you can disprove of the published literature on Evolution be my guest, you will overturn Biology in one foul swoop and win the Nobel. Since publication 1000shave tried with no success so good luck “why aren't you jabbed & boosted multiple times?” Of course I am vaccinated, I was first vaccinated in the 1960s, had boosters then again as a teenager. Then vaccinated for travel, boosters and tetanus. Flu jab around 2011 and annual boosters the Covid in 2021. No problem whatsoever. Do you have a brilliant theory here as well? “Have you read Darwins 2 books main books? Because if you believe those, then you're bigoted too.” I realy doubt you have ever read anything remotely scientific let alone complete books. Please cite the “bigoted” passages that offends you so much “Why should your multiple beliefs of evolutionism get called theory instead of hypotheses?” Because words actually mean something in science. Your ignorance is not my problem. “I believe the only reason it's not disregarded as only a weak hypothesis is because your side follows it religiously & tries to give it more credence than it deserves.” What you believe does not alter science one iota, instead of guessing and making up sully nonsense why don’t you try actually reading the published literature? “Many didn't share Darwins bigoted views.” Again please outline the “bigoted” passages from Origin. Also you are wrong yet again, the scientific community came to accept the findings within 15 years of publication “but if you're a bigot like Darwin, then it's just another reason you'd follow his faith. “ And I will warn you not to call people names that you know nothing about.
1
@vashmatrix5769 You cited a Harvard PhD early doors. You did not name the person
1
@vashmatrix5769 "why aren't you jabbed & boosted multiple times?" Eh? What you talking about?
1
@vashmatrix5769 "You've established that to be serious in your eyes means they must follow the cult/ religious beliefs of evolutionism" No it means consensus and peer reviewed published literature by professional scientists. Not AIG, DI or other creationist nonsense. Like I said there is no debate, just keep pretending
1
@vashmatrix5769 You CANT name an organisation, stop lying and stop spamming misinformation about science or I will call you on it.
1
@vashmatrix5769 Nope I have a degree in Applied Biology so I have actually studied it, had lectures from qualified professionals, taken labs and passed exams. Creationism, creation science and ID is just religion in disguise but by all means pretend it has something to do with science if you want to delude yourself. The scientific community totally rejected all Creationist claims decades ago. It is stupid superstitious nonsense, if that hurts your feelings tough, your ignorance is your problem.
1
@vashmatrix5769 Misinformation? By all means point that out, where I posted that.
1
@carloslopez5717 Added in 1956, zero to do with the constitution.
1
@laszlokiss483 Do they want to teach the Bible as fact? As history?
1
@melissaanderson1069 No it wasn't stop lying
1
What a fantastic tribute, brilliant.
1
 @michawill6599 Gay people exist, they are real. Gods and goddesses are not.
1
 @carloslopez5717 Added to money in the 1950s. ZERO to do with the constitution.
1
@dawn2wells Our countries are so weird in this way. The UK on paper is not secular. King Charles is head of the Church of England. The house of Lords has religious leaders and we have faith schools that teach different religions. Yet, very few policies from any party are pro life, anti gay, pro teaching religion including Creationism as fact in school purely on religious grounds. Compare that scenario to the US.
1
@dawn2wells Let us do that but let us teach the critical not devotional view. what current scholarship says on that. Totally fine with teaching what religion is. What people think.
1
@orwellspigs8540 What? Wtf that got to do with anything? Plus they don't. If you want to look at genocide look at ISIS and their objectives. You support that? Objective in Europe?
1
@orwellspigs8540 So you are ok with Islamic jihad? In Europe and elsewhere?
1
@orwellspigs8540 Google Rwanda. It's not genocide in the occupied territories. Do I agree with the policy? No
1
@vashmatrix5769 Which atheist governments?
1
@vashmatrix5769 I suppose I was asking which of these governments were around when the American Constitution was being put together.
1