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.
Yes, in fact I read quite a few of the reviews, enjoy:
"Milton has done an admirable job of weeding through the bluff and rhetoric of the arguments for Darwinian evolution and shows the evidence in nearly ever field of science either directly contradicts the predictions of Darwinism or the evidence is inconclusive at best and grossly over exaggerated to support the theory."
You seem to think it's important if a "scientist" (whatever you think that is) disagrees with a theory.
OH backstorke, Good job guy. I take it that you now admit that intellegent scientific people with all the right degrees do not endorse the theory of evolution.
Nice try there Johnny... Shame you have to resort to such intellectual dishonesty in order to prop up your falsified theory. I notice you don't offer a url so I can read that review in context. I'm gonna bet it's from a whackjob creationist site... You'll notice that the review I posted was from the URL you sent me to. Are you now going to claim it's invalid? So which site is lying John, the one you sent me to or the one you quoted without credit?
And, since you seem incapable of reading I'll just post this again so you don't miss it...
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.
Those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution.
That is just not true, the evidence does not support the theory of evolution. The problem is, your getting evolution mixed up with the theory of evolution. They are two totally different things.
Also, there are plenty of people who reject the theory of evolution for scientific reasons. I can not however, find anyone who has any scientific reasons to support the YEC position. In fact I was YEC at one time. But when you examine the evidence, it clearly points to a old earth and not a young earth.
Actually, we still believe a form of the YEC in that we believe in the "gap" theory. But that still allows for an old earth and not a young earth.
Just go to Amazon dot com and read the reviews for: "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism"
Yes, the first review is a proevolutionist review. But after that are about 10 reviews in favor of the book and it's author.
[/font]
You lose again, better luck next time.
PEER reviews, Johnny, PEER reviews. As in reviews by people in similar or equivelent fields.
Amazon.com book reviews are by lay people who read the book.
Reading a book hardly makes one an expert, or even knowledgeable in the subject matter. You yourself illustrate this beautifully.
__________________
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.
Just go to Amazon dot com and read the reviews for: "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism"
Yes, the first review is a proevolutionist review. But after that are about 10 reviews in favor of the book and it's author.
[/font]
You lose again, better luck next time.
--I'm afraid that Amazon book reviews do not qualify. Peer Review carries much more significance than a mere 'review', it carries the meaning of scientific credibility. You can read an example of how professional publishers of scientific literature carry out the process of peer review here:
Real scientists, unlike creationist activists, realize that science is about evidence and is not a popularity contest. Still, the NCSE couldn't resist playing the game. To make things fair, they tied both hands behind its back and only solicited scientists named Steve who were willing to list their current position and source of their degree. The Steve-o-meter lists 427 thus far. I think we can do the math.
I really like how you say that his statements are unsupported by evidence and but you happen to spew off as many 'facts' as he does.
edit: So that I actually attempt to contribute to the actual topic
I don't really know all that much about evolution/creation (i know the basics but I haven't made a study out of it), but it appears that there are few to none transition (missing links, whatever you want to call them) fossils. If it takes some billions of years shouldn't there be just about as many transition fossils as regular fossils.
AS someone already said: all fossils are transitional. But if you are looking for some specific transitions you can find a great list of vertebrate transitional fossils in the talkorigins FAQ.
(Sorry I would have put in a live link, but I'm too new here and haven't permission yet.)
There seems to be so much pressure to find these missing 'links' that people fake them quite frequently.
The only hoaxed fossil I have ever heard of is Piltdown Man. And that was not done under the pressure of finding a missing link. More likely with the intent of seeing how far the experts could be fooled.
Do you have a source of other faked missing links? Or are you just spreading unfounded rumours?
There's Archaeoraptor, but that was fabricated by a bunch of Chinese farmers who had never heard of evolution and were just trying to make money. American paleontologists caught the mistake after less than two months, and it hasn't been used as evidence for evolution since then.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Yes, I had heard of that one, but I didn't mention it because, as you say, it was not a response to pressure to find a "missing link". It was people just trying to satisfy a market demand and make a profit from it.
Not a genuine effort to prop up the theory with falsified evidence.
Linear Mode
