As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution

[pitabread]

Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

https://phys.org/news/2006-06-scientists-oppose-darwin-theory.html

Over 1,000 PhD Scientists Sign Petition Dissenting From Darwin's Theory of Evolution | Christians for Truth

Are there Non-Religious Skeptics of Darwinian Evolution and Proponents of Intelligent Design? | Christian Research Institute

The Vanishing Case for Evolution

Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists

Unfortunately this link-spam isn't really helping you here.

For example, several links are in relation to the DI's so-called "Dissent From Darwinism". But if you examine the actual statement, it's not even a statement against the modern theory of evolution. It's akin to asking scientists to sign a statement claiming that Newtonian physics is inadequate to explain all the workings of the universe. Well, duh. It's not exactly a controversial idea.

(It's also worth nothing that there is controversy around the signatories themselves including a number of people that didn't know what they were signing.)

And of course young-Earth creationist orgs are going to claim that evolution is doomed. They've been claiming that for over 50 years. Really all this proves is that if you have a large enough body of scientists, you can find at least a handful that are on the fringe.

There are scientists out there that deny the existence HIV, believe 9/11 conspiracy theories, anti-vaxx, among other things. Pointing to the fringe doesn't do much other than acknowledge the existence of said fringe.

Meanwhile, when you look at the reality of the state of current science, The Theory of Evolution remains a foundational component of modern biology, continues to be taught as such, and sees real-world application in areas of applied biology. And you'll find far more scientists that attest to that fact than who dispute it.

 

[Astrid]

Sorry, I didn't realise you'd called dibs on it

Flying pig think it outsmart large yellow duck with too clever
by one half.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nature makes mistakes; our Creator didn't.

Not interested.

 

[Frank Robert]

Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American

It took 13 years for the DI to gather signatures which is less than 1% of scientists. I bet that the Salem hypothesis predicts who the majority of those scientists are.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not interested.

LOL -- first you say:

The OP states that creation is superior to evolution and yet you do not provide any evidence or facts for that claim to be correct.

Then when I show you how creation is superior to evolution, you come back with: "Not interested."

Solid aurum.

 

[Frank Robert]

Nature makes mistakes; our Creator didn't.

Quirks and Glitches of the Human Body | Nathan Lents

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

LOL -- first you say:Then when I show you how creation is superior to evolution, you come back with: "Not interested."

Solid aurum.

No because you aren't provided any evidence, which is what I'm asking for. All you are doing is making a trite claim, as per usual.

 

[AV1611VET]

Quirks and Glitches of the Human Body

Nope ... sorry.

That's not how it works.

Those "quirks and glitches of the human body" came after the Fall, not before it.

 

[Astrid]

Unfortunately this link-spam isn't really helping you here.

For example, several links are in relation to the DI's so-called "Dissent From Darwinism". But if you examine the actual statement, it's not even a statement against the modern theory of evolution. It would be a little bit like asking scientists to sign a statement claiming that Newtonian physics is adequate to explain all the workings of the universe. Well, duh. It's not exactly a controversial idea.

(It's also worth nothing that there is controversy around the signatories themselves including a number of people that didn't know what they were signing.)

And of course young-Earth creationist orgs are going to claim that evolution is doomed. They've been claiming that for over 50 years. Really all this proves is that if you have a large enough body of scientists, you can find at least a handful that are on the fringe.

There are scientists out there that deny the existence HIV, believe 9/11 conspiracy theories, anti-vaxx, among other things. Pointing to the fringe doesn't do much other than acknowledge the existence of said fringe.

Meanwhile, when you look at the reality of the state of current science, The Theory of Evolution remains a foundational component of modern biology, continues to be taught as such, and sees real-world application in areas of applied biology. And you'll find far more scientists that attest to that fact than who dispute it.

Call it spam links or gish, it's stupid to
claim evidence against evolution, as
there isn't any.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nope ... sorry.

That's not how it works.

Those "quirks and glitches of the human body" came after the Fall, not before it.

You have no evidence for that claim.

 

[AV1611VET]

No because you aren't provided any evidence, which is what I'm asking for.

Creationism didn't generate any.

I'd say that makes it superior to nature, which makes mistakes.

 

[Bradskii]

I know, I know ... you're all upset. Evo's become quite emotional when anyone reveals that their evolution theory has no clothes.

Rather than deal with the theory's shortcomings, their SOP is to attack the messenger, try to destroy a reputation rather than refute an argument. We've seen this tactic before. Doubtless, we'll see it again.

Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

https://phys.org/news/2006-06-scientists-oppose-darwin-theory.html

Over 1,000 PhD Scientists Sign Petition Dissenting From Darwin's Theory of Evolution | Christians for Truth

Are there Non-Religious Skeptics of Darwinian Evolution and Proponents of Intelligent Design? | Christian Research Institute

The Vanishing Case for Evolution

Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists

And the link supporting your position re creation?The one where the theology overlaps the science (7th time of asking)?

"...the two quite obviously overlap..."

C'mon, before you reach your maximum post number.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Creationism didn't generate any.

I'd say that makes it superior to nature, which makes mistakes.

If it can't generate any evidence, then it can't be used for anything, especially science or history.

Creationism and creation is worthless outside of faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

... it's stupid to claim evidence against evolution, as there isn't any.

I'm going to agree with you on principle.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have no evidence for that claim.

I know. That evidence died in 3054 BC.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I know. That evidence died in 3054 BC.

... you'll need to explain that one since I've really lost track of how your time set up works.

But if there is no evidence for creation, then it cannot be used for anything that requires science or history, because it has no evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

If it can't generate any evidence, then it can't be used for anything, especially science or history.

Why are you talking present tense?

Are you assuming creatio ex nihilo can present evidence on demand?

Shouldn't you have asked: If it didn't generate any evidence?

Creationism and creation is worthless outside of faith.

I disagree ... but even if it was, it is far superior to evolution.

 

[Frank Robert]

Nope ... sorry.

That's not how it works.

Those "quirks and glitches of the human body" came after the Fall, not before it.

The "Fall" explanation is a big part of what makes me agnostic. How does an omnibenevolent God punish over 100 billion people for the sins of the parents? But it goes even further that, this same God is also omniscient so he knew when he created A&E that they would fall and that he would then punish all succeeding humans.

 

[AV1611VET]

... you'll need to explain that one since I've really lost track of how your time set up works.

Nathan Lents presents quirks and glitches of the human body.

But Adam, who was created in 4004 BC and died in 3054 BC, was created without quirks and glitches.

Quirks and glitches came after the Fall, not before it.

 

[AV1611VET]

The "Fall" explanation is a big part of what makes me agnostic. How does an omnibenevolent God punish over 100 billion people for the sins of the parents? But it goes even further that, this same God is also omniscient so he knew when he created A&E that they would fall and that he would then punish all succeeding humans.

Sorry, Frank.

I'm not going to entertain a discussion on creationism outside of Genesis 1.

If I do, the discussion will quickly descend into discussions on everything but the creation week.

The Fall, the Flood, the Crusades, whatever ... all came after the Fall ... not before it.