The Demise of Evolution

[JackRT]

Both the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are very well established major theories, with enormous levels of verification and evidence. The ToE is stronger, probably, than the BBT, but it's sort of like saying 'steel is fairly strong but titanium alloy is stronger' - either one will serve for tableware with no danger of failure due to stress. At this point there are no known major issues with either theory. Details to be filled in? Yes. Serious difficulties? No.

 

[MissRowy]

The Big Bang happened. Its not a theory..and since when was titanium used for tableware? My navel piercing is titanium because I can't have the stainless steel one as it contains nickel which I am allergic to.

 

[Astrophile]

This makes me wonder how sincere fundamentalist beliefs really are. If something like a scientific theory being correct would disprove the existence of God to someone, such beliefs sound terribly fragile.

If creationists really believed what they say they believe about a young Earth, flood geology and immutable created kinds, I would expect them to set out to learn everything they could about geology and biology, since they would expect to find evidence for their theory of creation. The fact that most creationists appear happy to remain in ignorance of these sciences suggests that either that they don't believe what they say they believe, or that they know that the evidence is against them.

 

[driewerf]

I rejected evolution as a kid, long before I got religion.

And of course as a kid you already knew everything -- and actually more -- than people who study this intensively. Can you name one college level textbook that you have read about this (as a kid!), and understood well enough to point the flaws?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And of course as a kid you already knew everything -- and actually more -- than people who study this intensively. Can you name one college level textbook that you have read about this (as a kid!), and understood well enough to point the flaws?

It's the textbooks that contain the flaws.

 

[Ophiolite]

It's the textbooks that contain the flaws.

I don't think you understood @driewerf 's question. Want to try again?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't think you understood @driewerf 's question. Want to try again?

Maybe driewerf doesn't understand my answer.

 

[driewerf]

It's the textbooks that contain the flaws.

Can you name one textbook -- college level -- that you read and understood well enough to point out the flaws?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Can you name one textbook -- college level -- that you read and understood well enough to point out the flaws?

Evolutionists have provided enough information from those books on these forums. No need for me to read them.

 

[driewerf]

Evolutionists have provided enough information from those books on these forums. No need for me to read them.

1) you were on this forum as a kid?
2) you think that all the posts here are equal to a college level textbook?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

1) you were on this forum as a kid?
2) you think that all the posts here are equal to a college level textbook?

Suffice to say that when I hold the theory next to the evidence it doesn't compute.

 

[driewerf]

Suffice to say that when I hold the theory next to the evidence it doesn't compute.

And against what evidence did you hold the ToE, to decide it did not compute?
Since we can now exclude all college level textbooks, did you read any popular science books?

 

[Ophiolite]

Maybe driewerf doesn't understand my answer.

No. You didn't understand his question, as is evident from your subsequent responses.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And against what evidence did you hold the ToE, to decide it did not compute?

Design.

 

[pitabread]

And against what evidence did you hold the ToE, to decide it did not compute?
Since we can now exclude all college level textbooks, did you read any popular science books?

FYI, we've explored this subject with OldWiseGuy before. The reason he rejects evolution and believes life is designed is based on an intrinsic emotional reaction to the perceived complexity of living things.

In the past, he's referred to it as "going with his gut" or some such. That's about as coherent an explanation on why rejects evolution as you're likely to get from him.

 

[driewerf]

Design.

"Design" is not evidence. What I expected was the result of an experiment, a sequenced protein, a fossil or any other piece of data.
But okay. You haven't read any textbook, you haven't read any popular science book, so were have you gathered your knowledge, to be able to reject the ToE with so much confidence, that you know better than people who have been informing themselves for years, if not decades?

 

[JackRT]

Claim:

“Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.” --- Morris, Henry. 1980. The ICR scientists. Impact 86 (Aug.). *http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=163

Response:

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). 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 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, 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 percent.

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSEd). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified.

One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of 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) and 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.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"Design" is not evidence.

That evolutionary science rejects design destroys their credibility. It's like a meteorologist telling you that the sun in shining, in the middle of a thunderstorm.

 

[Lazarus Long]

That evolutionary science rejects design destroys their credibility. It's like a meteorologist telling you that the sun in shining, in the middle of a thunderstorm.

But it is, it's even shining in the middle of the night.

 

[pitabread]

That evolutionary science rejects design destroys their credibility.

Credibility among who exactly? Who is "evolutionary science" trying to impress?