Evolutionary debate

[Ellinas]

I did warn you all not to feed the TROLL!!!!!!!

 

[Asycthian]

You can now debate this politics in a thread i just created (in the right area):

http://www.christianforums.com/t7443471/

I will also be talking about the theory of evolution in the thread as well.

 

[laconicstudent]

The thread you linked there doesn't have anything to do with Evolution.

 

[Pocktio]

If anything the base translation would be Ascythian saying 'Evolutionists are gay lulz'. Very immature.

 

[Asycthian]

Yes i realise this was not the correct place for the Political convo, so i was redirected to the politics thread.

So continue this thread with the science. Other threads (links below).

Debates:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7443491/

Darwin’s influence on communism and Nazism

http://www.christianforums.com/t7443471/

99% of atheists are homosexual

http://www.christianforums.com/t7443496/

Darwinism = Bad Morals/Homosexuality

 

[TerranceL]

Some other evolutionist asked for YEC's who had PhD, then i listed them, but they are not good enough?

I was the one who asked that... I asked you to list them because you said.

"Evidence? Most creationists i know are Ph.D. level." I wanted to know what ph.d. creationists you knew. I didn't think you were going to spam a list of mostly non-biologists.

You atheists/evolutionists can never accept when you are wrong can you. Such ignorance.

Perhaps you shouldn't have lied then about knowing these people.

And i listed numerous YEC's with PhD biology.

And they were in the minority in your list. I can show you a list of nothing but biologists who do believe in evolution and do have phds in biology.

These are authors of creationist articles. I;ve encountered most of their work before, since i've been reading their scientific contributions for several years now.

Oh so they aren't people that you know.

Why did you claim they were?

 

[TerranceL]

And what exactly have evolutionists ever contributed to anything?

Modern medicine.

All the theory of evolution has done is promote poor morality, promoted abortion, homosexuality (and other bad acts) and gave rise to bad ideologies such as Liberalism, Socialism, Communism and Nazism.

Nope sorry.

And Nazism is a purely chrisitan invention.

 

[TerranceL]

I've written the article, exposing the true origins of Darwinism. So far no one could refute it.

It was all political based. By the way, Marx wrote to Darwin numerous times, and even dedicated his work Das Kapital to Darwin. You can find his name in the preface to the book.

That's because all you did was make claims, you didn't back any of them up.

 

[Asycthian]

I was the one who asked that... I asked you to list them because you said.

"Evidence? Most creationists i know are Ph.D. level." I wanted to know what ph.d. creationists you knew. I didn't think you were going to spam a list of mostly non-biologists.

Why does it matter what PhD they hold? It proves they are very academic and have a very high level within their field to have obtained their degree.

Perhaps you shouldn't have lied then about knowing these people.

I know these people, most of the leaflets i recieve i get from them directly through various organisations, in UK there are two YEC organisations which give all this stuff out free.

I don't know who the Old Earther's are, as i said they are the minorities in the list. However it doesn't matter, the point is i provided a long list of PhD scientists who reject evolution. Your only responce (in denial, since i proved you wrong) is to pick holes at anything you can.

 

[TerranceL]

Why does it matter what PhD they hold? It proves they are very academic and have a very high level within their field to have obtained their degree.

What does it matter? Why would you hold an astronomer as a source on matters of biology?

I know these people, most of the leaflets i recieve i get from them directly through various organisations, in UK there are two YEC organisations which give all this stuff out free.

Right.

I don't know who the Old Earther's are, as i said they are the minorities in the list. However it doesn't matter, the point is i provided a long list of PhD scientists who reject evolution. Your only responce (in denial, since i proved you wrong) is to pick holes at anything you can.

I'm sorry, I expected you to link ph.d.s in a field that had something to do with biology.

For the most part you didn't.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Why does it matter what PhD they hold? It proves they are very academic and have a very high level within their field to have obtained their degree.

Because a Ph.D in theology or English or History or even physics does not entitle one to speak with authority on biological subjects.

 

[Pocktio]

Unfortunately for Ascythian as long as he can find a random link or quote that agrees with his paranoid delusions it becomes fact.

 

[solja247]

I dont get it. I believe in evolution but I am a YEC. Maybe you should be a bit more specific.

 

[Ellinas]

....

 

[corvus_corax]

Evidence? Most creationists i know are Ph.D. level.

I personally know many YEC Creationsists, and not one of them has a degree in a relevant field.
Heck, most don't even have a high school diploma

I'm taking a Ph.D. in a few years, i probably have more qualifications than anyone else in this thread.

Obviously not a Ph.D. in biology.

• Earl M.J. Aagaard Ph.D. Biology
• Gary L. Achtemeier Ph.D. Meteorology
• E. Theo Agard Ph.D. Physics<snipped for brevity>
  
• Henry Zuill Ph.D. Biology

EVERY SINGLE one of these links leads back to NOTHING but the ChristianForums home site.
<staff edit>

Some other evolutionist asked for YEC's who had PhD, then i listed them, but they are not good enough?

Duh Your ENTIRE list led back to nothing more than this URL- Christianforums.com

<staff edit>

And i listed numerous YEC's with PhD biology.
These are authors of creationist articles. I;ve encountered most of their work before, since i've been reading their scientific contributions for several years now.

<staff edit> provide ACTUAL links. Your parody of Creationism is becoming FAR to transparent.
<staff edit>

 

[Gawron]

Posted by aisey Day:

“I don't "believe" in evolution, but I accept that it is the best explanation of the facts.”

Surprised to see you in this thread. I wonder what led you here.

Posted by Pocktio:

“These people may exist but it's what they've contributed to the scientific community which should be focused on in this debate.”

Why? Funding to conduct research is often hard to come by, and the research often influenced by who is doing the funding. I can’t imagine that a scientist trying to conduct research from a “creationist” point of view is going to be very competitive in the field, and even if one did get funding, have his work taken as objective. But some of the factors which may influence science as done by a “creationist” would also influence science as done by anyone else, the principal being money.

An imperfect world

Quote:

In a perfect world, money wouldn't matter — all scientific studies (regardless of funding source) would be completely objective. But of course, in the real world, funding may introduce biases — for example, when the backer has a stake in the study's outcome.

End Quote. Link: www.undsci.berkely.edu/article/who_pays

If the only proper benchmark which is going to be used to determine someone’s personal worth when it comes to his or her scientific knowledge is whether or not he or she was ever part of a “peer-reviewed” study, then in one respect all science is suspect. Someone had to pay for that research which led to the findings published in the article, which means someone else wanted the money to begin with in order to do the research. The claim that all science except Creationist science is “pure” and free of bias is nonsense.

Besides, the watchdog groups out there guarding against any notion of Christian belief from intruding onto sacred Scientific ground are both persistent and effective.

Coalition Letter to Senate regarding "Creation Science" Earmark

Quote:

We, the undersigned religious, civil rights, education, science, and advocacy organizations write to urge you to remove an earmark from the Fiscal Year 2008 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill’s Committee Report. The Fund for Improvement of Education, under Title III, contains an earmark for uses that, if funded, would be blatantly unconstitutional. The earmark would fund curriculum that promotes teaching creationism in the science classroom, even though uniformly prohibited by federal courts.

End Quote. Link: http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/coalition-letter-senate-regarding-creation-science-earmark

I wonder how many Earmarks each year are opposed in such a manor?

Posted by Cabal:

“Because everyone knows Nazis and Communists got on SO well together.…”

I don’t want to get into a debate on Darwinian influences on Stalin and Hitler. However, the fact that the Nazis and the Communist fought each other during World War Two does not preclude both Stalin and Hitler from having read Darwin.

Posted by Pocktio:

“Science is not actively trying to disprove God”

It doesn’t need to. Evolutionary Theory by default assumes the absence of a divine creator.

Posted by Asycthian:

“Every evolutionist on this forum I have encountered isn't 'normal'.”

Define normal. Cabal is correct, “normal” is relative.

Posted by Panzerfaust:

“Because a PhD in theology or English or History or even physics does not entitle one to speak with authority on biological subjects.”

I understand the point of your comment, in that on the surface a paper on evolutionary biology written by someone with a PhD in Literature wouldn’t be taken as seriously as a paper written by an evolutionary biologist. But I also wonder how seriously you would question a paper written by an evolutionary biologist on the topic of, say, Paradise Lost?

People of education focus on a particular field, of course, but people of education are educated. Sure, I don’t want to pay for an advanced science class and find out the instructor has a PhD in Math, but I wouldn’t dismiss that math guy as ignorant of science just because he focused on Differential calculus.

 

[Asycthian]

I personally know many YEC Creationsists, and not one of them has a degree in a relevant field.

Answers in Genesis has listed over 10,000 scientists, PhD level.

Obviously not a Ph.D. in biology.

Are you aware the original biologists didn't believe in evolution? Obviously not. Only 19th century biologists started to believe in the theory of evolution. So that's less than 200 years vs. several thousand years of biologists who didn't believe in evolution.

EVERY SINGLE one of these links leads back to NOTHING but the ChristianForums home site.

It was a copy from a document. Nowhere did i say i was going to be giving links out.
<staff edit>

 

[Cabal]

Posted by Pocktio:

“These people may exist but it's what they've contributed to the scientific community which should be focused on in this debate.”

Why? Funding to conduct research is often hard to come by, and the research often influenced by who is doing the funding. I can’t imagine that a scientist trying to conduct research from a “creationist” point of view is going to be very competitive in the field, and even if one did get funding, have his work taken as objective. But some of the factors which may influence science as done by a “creationist” would also influence science as done by anyone else, the principal being money.

An imperfect world

Quote:

In a perfect world, money wouldn't matter — all scientific studies (regardless of funding source) would be completely objective. But of course, in the real world, funding may introduce biases — for example, when the backer has a stake in the study's outcome.

End Quote. Link: www.undsci.berkely.edu/article/who_pays

If the only proper benchmark which is going to be used to determine someone’s personal worth when it comes to his or her scientific knowledge is whether or not he or she was ever part of a “peer-reviewed” study, then in one respect all science is suspect. Someone had to pay for that research which led to the findings published in the article, which means someone else wanted the money to begin with in order to do the research. The claim that all science except Creationist science is “pure” and free of bias is nonsense.

Besides, the watchdog groups out there guarding against any notion of Christian belief from intruding onto sacred Scientific ground are both persistent and effective.

This has little to do with whether or not a theory is scientifically evidenced or not. Measurements and observations aren't done once, the key is that they are repeatable - and if your observations don't sync with everyone else's, then your conclusions go out the window.

Conspiracy in one lab is one thing. Conspiracy among them all is far less likely.

Coalition Letter to Senate regarding "Creation Science" Earmark

Quote:

We, the undersigned religious, civil rights, education, science, and advocacy organizations write to urge you to remove an earmark from the Fiscal Year 2008 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill’s Committee Report. The Fund for Improvement of Education, under Title III, contains an earmark for uses that, if funded, would be blatantly unconstitutional. The earmark would fund curriculum that promotes teaching creationism in the science classroom, even though uniformly prohibited by federal courts.

End Quote. Link: http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/coalition-letter-senate-regarding-creation-science-earmark

I wonder how many Earmarks each year are opposed in such a manor?

What exactly is suspect about this? If it's unconstitutional, then it shouldn't pass.

Posted by Cabal:

“Because everyone knows Nazis and Communists got on SO well together.…”

I don’t want to get into a debate on Darwinian influences on Stalin and Hitler. However, the fact that the Nazis and the Communist fought each other during World War Two does not preclude both Stalin and Hitler from having read Darwin.

It's just kind of ironic that Darwinism can be said to have inspired two political theories which pretty much opposed each other on every level from the getgo - which means the accusation smacks of prejudice rather than fact.

Additionally, as I keep pointing out and people keep conveniently ignoring, Hitler was primarily influenced by Nietzsche, who rejected Darwinism.

Posted by Pocktio:

“Science is not actively trying to disprove God”

It doesn’t need to. Evolutionary Theory by default assumes the absence of a divine creator.

As does any theory - and? Inserting an omnipotent entity not only violates parsimony but also kills inquiry dead. If things can be demonstrated and explained without the need for God present and yet God still exists, then He must have designed them that way. Personally, I think it's because being able to prove him in an empirical and logical fashion would begin to destroy the notion of making a choice to follow Him based on faith.

 

[Gawron]

Posted by Cabal:

“This has little to do with whether or not a theory is scientifically evidenced or not.”

Eh, I think the money has a profound impact, but I don’t want to quibble. Your point on data being repeatable is valid but I wasn’t trying to imply a “conspiracy”, but rather influence.

“What exactly is suspect about this?”

How many earmarks are opposed in this manner each year?

“Personally, I think it's because being able to prove him in an empirical and logical fashion would begin to destroy the notion of making a choice to follow Him based on faith.”

The existence of God cannot be scientifically validated, agreed. But then his existence can’t be scientifically invalidated either. You are correct, it is a matter of faith.

I participate in evolution debates on various places around the web, and I see this comment quite often, that science makes no attempt to dis-prove God. I find this comment disingenuous, however, as the non-existence of God is built into the theory as a default assumption. You are correct that simply crediting God with everything can shut down certain scientific inquiry. But someone making the point that they are not trying to dis-prove something which they have already decided does not exist is a bit, well, silly, to be polite about it.

 

[LightHorseman]

1. Fossils arn't conclusive evidence for anything. They are dead, not alive; therefore they can only be interpreted by man.

Evolutionist's have their interpretation, creationist's have theirs, even other religions have their own different interpretations.

The ignorance is when evolutionist's equate interpretation to fact.

2. DNA isn't evidence for anything, nor is it even proven, it's based on the Atomic theory, which was invented by Atheistic materialists. Anyway, evolutionist's themselves don't use DNA to prove evolution, since they maintain man shares over 60% DNA with a banana. So did we all evolve from a banana, or other fruit and veg?

3. I wouldn't trust a word from Darwin. For those who don't know, the man had no scientific qualification whatsoever and was a college drop out.

4. The belief in evolution is anti-Biblical. The Bible and belief in evolution and not compatable.

Are... are you now disputing the existance of DNA???