Originally posted by Cyclo Rider
They agreed to the terms, because they share the same views. These are life-long scientists in the biological sciences, like it or not.
Nope, most of them are not life-long scientists. Furthermore, their opinions on evolution are not based on science but religious faith. There can be no other conclusion when they sign a statement of
faith upon joining ICR affirming that evolution is not true. Real objective scientists do not do such a thing.
Moreover, they are in a position to know "evolutionary biology" and they have rejected Darwinism outright.
They might have degrees that indicate that they might know about evolutionary biology, but that is no indication that they actually do.
Trying to reduce "evolutionary biology" to a cultic few evolutionists of your choosing doesn't hold water, because numerous biology scientists have flat-out rejected Darwinism as science.
Read my posts again. At no point have I put any requirements on the field of evolutionary biology to reduce its numbers, nor have I stated that I get to choose who qualifies and who does not. That is up to the type of research they do and have done. If you need to learn about the field, try
this resource.
Now do you know of a single modern population/evolutionary biologist who considers special creation an adequate explanation for the diversity of life? To answer this you will need to provide more than a name. You will also need to provide some evidence that the person is/was a population biologist. Simply showing that he or she is a biologist or has a biological degree isn't enough. Furthermore, you will also need to show that he or she thinks special creation explains the diversity of life..
This is about YOUR assertions.
Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof off your shoulders, but it ain't going to work. Anyone doing a cursory reading of this thread can tell that you are make numerous unsubstantiated assertions with little interest to back them up. You are attempting to discuss science; as such rhetoric will get you nowhere. You need to start providing some data to back yourself up.
Actually, Icons of Evolution does quite an effective job at exposing the fraud of the evolution fundamentalist position. You can deny it, you can ignore facts, you can resort to smear tactics, but the author Jonathan Wells is a respected biologist with Ph.D.'s from Yale and U.C. Berkeley.
LOL. Jonathan Wells is not a respected biologist. In fact he isn't even a biologist. He does have a PhD in Molecular Biology, but other than that he has done no scientific work or ever been a part of the scientific community. He only has a few scientific papers to his name, with no prospects of ever writing anymore. Furthermore, he freely admits that he only got his second PhD, at the request of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, to pad his resume so that when he writes his book to "destroy Darwinism" people like you can mistakenly claim that he is a biologist.
Please, enlighten me as to what facts am I ignoring.
That's the evolution fundamentalist position.
Life from non-life and non-intelligent matter creating intelligence! I'm sorry, but neither belief has any scientific basis whatsoever.
Please provide evidence from actual "evolution fundamentalist" works that indicates that that truly is their position. Until you can do so, you are arguing against a straw-man. I hope you have something more than your personal opinion to demonstrate what "evolution fundamentalists" believe, that they really exist, and that the science of evolution is irreconcilably linked to these evolution fundamentalists. Until you do so your comments dont come close to addressing the actual scientific knowledge about the evolution of life.
Moreover, the lack of "transitional" forms proves evolution fundamentalism to be nothing more than a demented fairy tale. If it were even remotely valid, there would be more transitional forms than completed forms, because for every one completed stage, we'd see several "transitional" stages. There are not. Instead, a few assumptions that don't hold weight.
By what criteria are you able to make this determination about the number of transitional fossils that we
should have? You can claim all you want that we should have gillions of transitional fossils, but until you explain why, showing with detail how you came up with this conclusion and showing exactly how many are known to paleontology, your comments are nothing more that unsubstantial rhetoric. Scientists consider the fossil record to be excellent conformation of evolutionary biology; Cyclo Rider does not. If you cant offer anything more than your opinion, I am obliged to go with the consensus of the scientific community on this one.
Thats not an adequate answer. You need to provide us with some of that
data from observable science, if you what to support that the creationist positions are reflected in nature. You also need to provide some sort of proof that a supernatural explanation is the
only possible one.
Darwinian evolution is in complete violation of the following:
1. The Law of Causality
2. The Law of Biogenesis
3. The Law of Genetics
4. The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Please give details about these laws and how evolution violates them. In the meantime Im going to comment on them.
- Law of Causality is not a law of nature. (Its from philosophy.) Therefore, there is no way that, even if evolution violates it, the scientific reality of evolution is affected.
- Since evolution is only concerned about the evolution of life and not its origins, the law of biogenesis is not relevant to it.
- There is no such thing as The Law of Genetics; therefore evolution cannot be in violation of it.
- Evolution in no manner violates 2LoT, since 2LoT simply states that process can only happen, which increase the total entropy (amount of energy unavailable for work) of the universe. Since biological processes, including evolution, do happen they can in no manner be in volition of 2LoT. What allows biological processes to happen, you might ask? For the most part the energy output of the sun powers the biochemical reactions that keep things alive, reproducing, and evolving.
Up to this point you argument has been so lacking of substance, that most creationists have stopped using it.