Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
No John, once again you spew opinions and call them facts. Evolution is under attack from an ignorant minority who can't reconcile the world with their scripture.
If you believe that, then you have more than blinders on, you are outright blindfolded. I was just looking at a website from a link in another thread. There are LOTS of scientists that do not accept the theory of evolution. Here is a link to the page, but I know you will not give it a honest evalutaion, because it does not fit in with your pet theory:
There are 600 voting members with at least a masters degree in the creation research society. Are you calling them all "ignorant"? Take a look at Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton
He is not even a creationist, just a scientist that can not accept the myth of the theory of evolution. Do you think he is "ignorant"?
Do you remember the challange to find one geologist who based on the scientific evidence does not believe in a old earth? No one could find even one person of any reputation that would support a young earth. Well, if the theory of evolution was as foregone of a conclusion as you seem to think it is, then we should not be able to find so many scientists who do not support the theory of evolution.
Anyways, your statement has been falsifed, there are lots of men of science with masters degrees and PHd's that are not "ignorant" and they do not support your pet theory of evolution.
If you believe that, then you have more than blinders on, you are outright blindfolded. I was just looking at a website from a link in another thread. There are LOTS of scientists that do not accept the theory of evolution. Here is a link to the page, but I know you will not give it a honest evalutaion, because it does not fit in with your pet theory:
There are 600 voting members with at least a masters degree in the creation research society. Are you calling them all "ignorant"?
Exactly how many scientists do you think there are? In addition, how many of those scientists have degrees in fields related to creation/evolution?
I bet you that your number will dwindle.
Originally Posted by JohnR7
Do you remember the challange to find one geologist who based on the scientific evidence does not believe in a old earth? No one could find even one person of any reputation that would support a young earth. Well, if the theory of evolution was as foregone of a conclusion as you seem to think it is, then we should not be able to find so many scientists who do not support the theory of evolution.
You seem to think that 600 scientists (what qualifies as a scientist IYO?) is a lot. Do you not realize that for any theory there are probably a few scientists (with degrees in the actual field) who disagree with it?
Originally Posted by JohnR7
Anyways, your statement has been falsifed, there are lots of men of science with masters degrees and PHd's that are not "ignorant" and they do not support your pet theory of evolution.
They are not ignorant in general, but they seem to be ignorant of biology.
__________________ If we are going to teach 'creation science' as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction. ~Judith Hayes, In God We Trust: But Which One?
"Be happy noble heart... And now the God of vengeance yields to me his power."
Just remember, you are unique, just like everybody else.
Here is a few, check them out, I would be glad for you to tell me how ignorant they are. I am always glad to agree with someone who thinks that a person with a masters degree or a phd is ignorant.
<LI>Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
<LI>Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
<LI>Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
<LI>James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
<LI>Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
<LI>Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
<LI>Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
<LI>Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]
<LI>Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
<LI>Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
<LI>William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
<LI>John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
<LI>Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
<LI>William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
<LI>Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]
<LI>Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
<LI>Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton
He is not even a creationist, just a scientist that can not accept the myth of the theory of evolution. Do you think he is "ignorant"?
Yup. Ignorant! Did you even read the review of the book? Here, enjoy:
With selective evidence and twisted logic, Milton (Alternative Science, Inner Traditions, 1996) attempts to discredit the concept of organic evolution. Although raising important questions about interpretation and methodology, he fails to overturn the neo-Darwinian framework as he attacks as "myths" the claims of modern science concerning the age of this planet, the geological column with its fossil record, and even the biological relationship between the great apes and our own species. He ignores most of the recent evolutionary literature (especially in paleoanthropology and primatology), and his chapters are full of dated illustrations, misleading generalizations, and glaring errors, e.g., "the evidence for humankind's own evolution is actually nonexistent" and "Today, 'Java man' is thought to be an extinct, giant gibbonlike creature and not connected to humans." His own interpretation of earth history remains ambiguous, leaving the reader to wonder about what hidden motive underscores this morass of falsehoods. Not recommended.?H. James Birx, Canisius Coll., Buffalo, N.Y.
Copyright 1997 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Well, if the theory of evolution was as foregone of a conclusion as you seem to think it is, then we should not be able to find so many scientists who do not support the theory of evolution.
You seem to think it's important if a "scientist" (whatever you think that is) disagrees with a theory. It doesn't matter one bit if a thousand "scientists" disagree... unless their disagreement is supported by evidence. Darwin himself could come back from the dead and proclaim evolution to be false... he'd be laughed at if he couldn't back it up. Scientists are not priests, people don't just follow what they say because of their title. Now when one or a group comes forward with evidence and papers explaining that evidence... then I'll be happy to listen to your rants.
Anyways, your statement has been falsifed, there are lots of men of science with masters degrees and PHd's that are not "ignorant" and they do not support your pet theory of evolution.
You call that falsified? Your opinion supported by selective evidence and twisted logic? HA!
Nice list john. Don't forget to include all scientists from before the theory of evolution actually was described and written. Oh- i see you have a few. take them off, since everyone was a creationist until someone figured out how speciation occoured. As for the rest- Tell me the last scientific peer- reviewed publication they were in and the article and what it concerned. especially Gish. they are not ignorant or stupid, just not paying attention to actual evidence and not active in the actual world of mainstream science.
__________________ Jesus said, "If a blind person leads a blind person, both of them will fall into a hole." Thomas 34
"On blind faith they place reliance, what they need more of is science"- MC Hawking
How sweet life would be for the evolutionist if this were simply a debate of YEC vs the theory of evolution. That is not the case. The theory of evolution is under attack from more than just YEC supporters. In fact, the theory of evolution is underattach from not only the outside all around, but also from the inside, from their own ranks. It has always been a controversal theory.
For once, John has got it (mostly) right.
Evolution is under attack from within the scientific community. It has always been under attack from scientists. They've been nit-picking, prying apart, bending, folding, splitting, and mutilating it even before the ink was dry on Origin of Species
But what John (as usual) doesn't realize is that there's nothing controversial about this; it is, in fact, perfectly normal. No scientific theory goes unchallenged. They all get put through the wringer that we call "peer-review," and the ones that don't measure up are changed to fit the facts, or uncerimoniously tossed in the trash.
Now comes the point where Johnny trots out his "Darwin has been falsified!" pony. Alas, that horse is dead. Darwin's science has been taken apart and put back together several times over during the last 150 years. Some of what Darwin had said was, in fact, mistaken. Later, smarter men than him, men who had access to information he did not, corrected his mistakes.
But the core of his theory, Evolution by Natural Selection, has survived every intelligent challenge put to it. It is still the best possible explanation for the diversity of life as we know it today. It is accepted by the scientific community preciselybecause they constantly attack it without pity, but it remains undefeated.
__________________
Don't talk like one of them. You're not! Even if you'd like to be.
To them, you're just a freak, like me! They need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out, like a leper! You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other.
See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Here is a few, check them out, I would be glad for you to tell me how ignorant they are. I am always glad to agree with someone who thinks that a person with a masters degree or a phd is ignorant.
You should leave off the ones that lived before Darwin. It doesn't prove anything for someone to not accept the theory of evolution at a time when that theory doesn't yet exist.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nice list john. Don't forget to include all scientists from before the theory of evolution actually was described and written. Oh- i see you have a few. take them off, since everyone was a creationist until someone figured out how speciation occoured. As for the rest- Tell me the last scientific peer- reviewed publication they were in and the article and what it concerned. especially Gish. they are not ignorant or stupid, just not paying attention to actual evidence and not active in the actual world of mainstream science.
I've noticed on John's/AiG's list, Leonardo Da Vinci is listed. Is this the same Da Vinci who, living in the 16th century, recored in his notebooks (300 years before Darwin, BTW)
"Man does not differ from the animals except in what is accidental..."
Nice to see John/AiG on the cutting edge of scientific thought, as usual...
__________________
Don't talk like one of them. You're not! Even if you'd like to be.
To them, you're just a freak, like me! They need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out, like a leper! You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other.
See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Here is a few, check them out, I would be glad for you to tell me how ignorant they are. I am always glad to agree with someone who thinks that a person with a masters degree or a phd is ignorant.
Well thanks there John! I'll save you posting the list of 120,000 papers directly relating to evolution. I'll save you the list of over 480,000 scientists, biologists primarily who work with this every day.
Thomas G. Barnes for example. He's a physicist. The man knows no more about biology than I do. He's ignorant of evolutionary theory.
I'm not going to bother further with your list, each and every one is a creationist first, a scientist after. Here, since you're into cutting and pasting, this should do.
Out of the approximately 13,000,000 scientists and engineers in the US alone, less than 5% (some 600,000) are creationists, according to Gallup poll results. However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory [Robinson, 1995]. This means that less than 0.15% of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that's just the US, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1%.
Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect [NCSE, n.d.]. The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a website to the topic [NAS, 1999]. A panel of 72 Nobel Laureates, 17 state academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court [Edwards v. Aguillard, 1986]. This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism isn't science. Note that there are no creationist Nobel Laureates.
One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.
Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else), open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.
South America and Africa are moving apart right now, at a rate of about 1 inch per year--this can be measured with satellites. Because the continents are about 4,000 miles apart, this rate of motion would have the two continents being together about 250 million years ago.
Of course, the YEC answer to this is that there was something that moved them apart more quickly than this, but they have not yet suggested something that could do this. If the earth is only 6,000 years old, they would have had to be moving apart more than half a mile per year. Plate tectonics cannot act quickly enough to cause this sort of motion.
--Baumgardner's proposal of runaway subduction seems possible. While its implications for interaction with the oceans and atmosphere have inevitably imposed potential inconsistencies, the actual geodynamics of the runaway subduction mechanism has been pretty well substantiated as a good possibility IMO.
In other words, both paleomagnetism and an extrapolation of the continents' current motion produce the same result. Do you think God made these two lines of evidence agree with one another in this manner just to fool us?
--No, but I presume that if the earth has a different history than uniformitarian geology has implied, there is probably a good explanation for the apparent conincidence, possibly because of a direct or indirect relation.
Linear Mode
