Let the Reckoning Begin

BCP1928 · Mar 9, 2024

Vambram said:
Then, may I know what you did mean?

That YECs on CF don't seem to know much about biology

Vambram · Mar 9, 2024

BCP1928 said:
That YECs on CF don't seem to know much about biology

Does Nothing in Biology Make Sense Except in the Light of Evolution? – Revolution Against Evolution

www.rae.org

This article is multiple pages long. However, here are some relevant quotes from it. I invite you to check out the entirety of that article.

Although Darwinists often talk about the central importance of “evolution” in gaining a basic understanding of the natural world, my research reveals that the daily work of both scientific education (and in most scientific research), evolution is rarely mentioned or even a concern. This has been my own experience as a research associate involved in cancer research in the department of experimental pathology at the Medical College of Ohio and a college professor in the life and behavioral science area for over 30 years. As Conrad E. Johanson, Ph.D. (Professor of Clinical Neurosciences and Physiology and Director of Neurosurgery Research at Brown Medical School in Rhode Island) noted, in the world of science research on a day-to-day basis, scientists

"rarely deal directly with macroevolutionary theory, be it biological or physical. For example, in my 25 years of neuroscience teaching and research I have only VERY rarely had to deal with natural selection, origins, macroevolution, etc. My professional work in science stems from rigorous training in biology, chemistry, physics, and math, not from world views about evolution. I suspect that such is the case for most scientists in academia, industry, and elsewhere (2003. p. 1)."

Click to expand...

The renown carbene chemist, Professor emeritus Dr. Philip Skell of Pennsylvania State University, did a survey of his colleagues that were “engaged in non-historical biology research, related to their ongoing research projects” and found that the “Darwinist researchers” he interviewed in answer to the question “Would you have done the work any differently if you believed Darwin’s theory was wrong?” found that the answers “for the large number” of those persons he questioned, “differing only in the amount of hemming and hawing” was “in my work it would have made no difference,” and some added they thought it would for others (2003. p. 1). Of interest is Molecular, Cell and Development Biology majors at Yale University graduate school will no longer be required to take courses on evolution (Hartman, 2003).

Hans Blaster · Mar 10, 2024

Matt5 said:
What is the religion of atheists?

Nothing. It's a trick question.

Gene2memE · Mar 10, 2024

Vambram said:
Creationism has a very clear and rational understanding of biology.

Hahahaha. No.

Vambram said:
One does not have to be an evolutionist in order to have a rational, clear, and scientific understanding of biology.

There's really no understanding in biology without evolution. Creationism is mere assertion.

Vambram · Mar 10, 2024

Gene2memE said:
There's really no understanding in biology without evolution. Creationism is mere assertion.

I am 100% absolutely certain that this quoted opinion is 100% incorrect. Macro-evolution is a failed teaching.

BCP1928 · Mar 10, 2024

Vambram said:
I am 100% absolutely certain that this quoted opinion is 100% incorrect. Macro-evolution is a failed teaching.

Still, it is an explanation for the diversity of life on Earth which has not been contradicted by the evidence found so far and there is no credible alternative explanation. So it's not a complete failure.

Vambram · Mar 10, 2024

BCP1928 said:
Still, it is an explanation for the diversity of life on Earth which has not been contradicted by the evidence found so far and there is no credible alternative explanation.

Interpreting the scientific evidence through the viewpoint of Creationism does the same thing. In my opinion, it is a far more effective viewpoint and method of interpretation than evolutionism.

BCP1928 · Mar 10, 2024

Vambram said:
Interpreting the scientific evidence through the viewpoint of Creationism does the same thing. In my opinion, it is a far more effective viewpoint and method of interpretation than evolutionism.

And what is this "viewpoint of creationism?"

Vambram · Mar 10, 2024

BCP1928 said:
And what is this "viewpoint of creationism?"

One omnipotent, omniscient Creator Who is the One and only designer of all of the wonderful and awesome complexities in what the humanists would call Nature.

BCP1928 · Mar 10, 2024

Vambram said:
One omnipotent, omniscient Creator Who is the One and only designer of all of the wonderful and awesome complexities in what the humanists would call Nature.

Christians and other theists who accept the theory of evolution already do that. It doesn't change the theory any.

Gene2memE · Mar 10, 2024

Vambram said:
Macro-evolution is a failed teaching.

What are it's teachings and where are they failed? Where has it been falsified?

P.S. Even if the modern synthesis - the current understanding of the Theory of Evolution - was falsified as the explanation of the history and current diversity of life, whatever replaces it is still going to be a evidence-based, testable and fasifiable naturalistic explanation.

Ophiolite · Mar 10, 2024

Vambram said:
I am 100% absolutely certain that this quoted opinion is 100% incorrect. Macro-evolution is a failed teaching

This is strongly suggestive of the fact that your investigation of the theory is woefully inadequate and almost certainly not based on evidence. Such a level of confidence is by itself unscientific. Any examples you post of scientists who have claimed 100% certainty are either using bombast to make a point, or are very poor scientists. Were you just being bombastic?

Hans Blaster · Mar 10, 2024

Vambram said:
I am 100% absolutely certain that this quoted opinion is 100% incorrect. Macro-evolution is a failed teaching.

Any time I see someone use the word "teaching" as a noun my dogma alarm goes off.* "A teaching" is a part of a dogma, and science isn't a dogma. It doesn't have "teachings".

*In this case an anti-science, creationist dogma was detected.

Belk · Mar 10, 2024

Vambram said:
Interpreting the scientific evidence through the viewpoint of Creationism does the same thing. In my opinion, it is a far more effective viewpoint and method of interpretation than evolutionism.

How many Noble winners in biology subscribe to creationism?

RileyG · Mar 10, 2024

Vambram said:
I am a conservative who strongly objects to youth marriages and kiddy beauty pageants.

I'm in full agreement with you.

Hans Blaster · Mar 10, 2024

Belk said:
How many Noble winners in biology subscribe to creationism?

A trick question. There is no "Nobel Prize in Biology".

Belk · Mar 11, 2024

Hans Blaster said:
A trick question. There is no "Nobel Prize in Biology".

Feh, hoisted on my own petard.

driewerf · Mar 12, 2024

Vambram said:
I am 100% absolutely certain that this quoted opinion is 100% incorrect. Macro-evolution is a failed teaching.

If that is the case, it will be very easy for you to provide empirical data that is is contradiction with the Theory of Evolution.

driewerf · Mar 12, 2024

Vambram said:
One omnipotent, omniscient Creator Who is the One and only designer of all of the wonderful and awesome complexities in what the humanists would call Nature.

Vambram said:
Interpreting the scientific evidence through the viewpoint of Creationism does the same thing. In my opinion, it is a far more effective viewpoint and method of interpretation than evolutionism.

And here we see the anti science at work. It is shoehorning the evidence with in a preconceived conclusion in stead of reaching a conclusion after having examined the available evidence. No scientist will interpret the data through an evolutionary viewpoint. it is the evidence that lead to that conclusion.

Vambram · Mar 12, 2024

Quick question for the evolutionists here.
Do you believe that the evolution is theistic evolution or intelligent design?

Let the Reckoning Begin

Well-Known Member

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Rocket surgeon

Newbie

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Well-Known Member

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Well-Known Member

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Rocket surgeon

Senior Member

Veteran

Rocket surgeon

Senior Member

a day at the Zoo

a day at the Zoo

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Similar threads