Every scientist is wrong?

[JohnR7]

I have always been curious as to how people who don't accept evolution rationalize the fact that they are rejecting the professional opinion of nearly every scientist in a relevant field.

You have to understand that evolutionists call anything and everything evolution. They do not want a open and honest debate or discussion becasue they know they will lose. So they fight the battle by trying to confuse the issue. The last thing they want is for the anti evolution position to be understood. The last thing evolutionists want is for people to understand just what the anti evolution arguement really is. So they use a smoke screen and say things like all of science is evolution and if you object to evolution you object to science. This then shuts down all discussion and you no longer have a constructive and productive dialog between evolution and non evolutionists.

The truth is exactly the opposite of what you contend. Evolution is NOT science and true science does not represent evolution theory at all. In fact true science falsifys evolution. Which is just the opposite of what you are trying to claim. True science does not support evolution at all. This is not a science vs religion debate. The true discussion is in showing how science falsifys darwins theory of evolution. Which of course why we now have neo darwinism, which is an attempt to save darwins theory by mixing it in with Mendal or genetics. The problem is that darwinism is error and you can not change that by mixing it in with truth. A little bit of poison will ruin the whole pot of food.

 

[lemmings]

This is why the Creationists have a list of evolution deniers. This list contains around 600 physicists, engineers, geologists, and yes a few biologists, considerably less than half a percent of the total number of biologists in the world however they never mention that last part.

 

[shadowmage36]

Allow me to (re)direct you to Project Steve, the list of scientists (all named Steve) who have degrees in relevant fields who all support the TOE. (I know the link was posted in another thread, but I thought it relevant to the discussion).

Please note, this is only guys named Steve. ONLY!!

 

[Valkhorn]

You have to understand that evolutionists call anything and everything evolution.

This is a lie. Evolution is a specific theory and has nothing to do with abiogenesis, gravity, etc.

They do not want a open and honest debate or discussion becasue they know they will lose.

This is also a lie. We'd love an honest debate and discussion, if you'd just bring the evidence.

So they fight the battle by trying to confuse the issue.

No I'm pretty sure that's what creationists do.

The last thing they want is for the anti evolution position to be understood.

I'm sure this is creationism, too. After all when it is understood one realizes how silly it is.

The last thing evolutionists want is for people to understand just what the anti evolution arguement really is.

Actually we want people to understand it so they know how bogus Creationism and ID is.

So they use a smoke screen and say things like all of science is evolution

What scientist says this?

and if you object to evolution you object to science.

One part thats actually partly true. You're not batting very high, John.

This then shuts down all discussion and you no longer have a constructive and productive dialog between evolution and non evolutionists.

No. Creationism shuts down discourse and open debate. Why do you think biased sites do not like any evidence which goes against their narrow worldview?

 

[Split Rock]

Now if only someone would provide clear proof of DIVINE REVELATION anywhere!

Do we need to accept people's claim of personal "divine revelation"? Did the homeless guy on the street shouting at the traffic lights really see God?

Was there ever really a Noah? An Abraham? A Moses? Was there a Garden of Eden? How do we know?

Or, is it more likely that the first several Books of Bible is a collection of creation myths and other ancient times myths, (followed by some books that are in part semi- and pseudo-histories based on oral tradition passed on from the late Bronze Age until the 8th century BC when wide-spread literacy crops up in Judah?)

Divine Revelation has to be pretty obvious, I should think. I'd be very interested to see such a thing!

(Of course if you tell my you were divinely inspired how will I know you weren't mistaken? The brain is a complex organ.)

-t

You have done a good job of explaining the problem with Divine Revelation. Who's Divine Relvelation is true? Nevertheless, with most Creationists, their own Divine Revelation indeed trumps anything anyone else can tell them. Evidence is quite irrelevent.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You have to understand that evolutionists call anything and everything evolution.

No, Evolutionists call evolution evolution. WHo's to blame because Creationists don't want to learn what that is or is not?

They do not want a open and honest debate or discussion becasue they know they will lose. So they fight the battle by trying to confuse the issue.

Fine, Johnny.

Define the terms "information" in the evolutionary sense, and the creationist term "Kind."

Creationists use these terms all the time, but never bother to define them. Perhaps you can be the first.

The last thing they want is for the anti evolution position to be understood. The last thing evolutionists want is for people to understand just what the anti evolution arguement really is.

Isn't it up to the anti-evolutionists to make their position understood? Must we do all the work for them?

So they use a smoke screen and say things like all of science is evolution and if you object to evolution you object to science.

No, they say that evolutionary theory is the cornerstone of biology. And they are correct.

This then shuts down all discussion and you no longer have a constructive and productive dialog between evolution and non evolutionists.

Dealing with non-evolutionists is never easy and seldom worth the effort.

The truth is exactly the opposite of what you contend. Evolution is NOT science and true science does not represent evolution theory at all. In fact true science falsifys evolution.

Perhaps you could give a straight answer to support this claim, or is this a smokescreen by you?

Evidence, Johnny -- Got some?

Which is just the opposite of what you are trying to claim. True science does not support evolution at all.

Evidence, Johnny -- Got some?

This is not a science vs religion debate. The true discussion is in showing how science falsifys darwins theory of evolution.

Evidence, Johnny -- Got some?

Which of course why we now have neo darwinism, which is an attempt to save darwins theory by mixing it in with Mendal or genetics. The problem is that darwinism is error and you can not change that by mixing it in with truth. A little bit of poison will ruin the whole pot of food.

The problem is that evolution is not "Darwinism" nor is it "Neo darwinism." These are terms Creationists such as yourself toss around to confuse the issue.

Pot. Kettle. BLack.

 

[lemmings]

Please note, this is only guys named Steve. ONLY!!

They alow a few variations in the name so I believe the only real requirement, name wise, is a S, T, and E in the name, remember Stephen Hawking is on the list.

 

[AdmiralBell]

They alow a few variations in the name so I believe the only real requirement, name wise, is a S, T, and E in the name, remember Stephen Hawking is on the list.

Your point? The Ste people who support evolution out number those who don't.

 

[Split Rock]

You have to understand that evolutionists call anything and everything evolution.

Wrong. It is Creationist who do this. They are the ones who coined terms like "molecules to Man" evolution. Real scientists never use such a term.

They do not want a open and honest debate or discussion becasue they know they will lose. So they fight the battle by trying to confuse the issue.

This is the typical Creationist tactic. It is OK for them to lie, however, because they believe are saving souls in the process.

The last thing they want is for the anti evolution position to be understood. The last thing evolutionists want is for people to understand just what the anti evolution arguement really is.

The last thing Creationists want is for evolution to be understood. That is why they misrepresent the TOE and the evidence every chance they get. For example, they post pictures of plastic chimp skulls from the local Kmart and claim it is the "real" Australopithicus skull. You remember that... don't you John?

So they use a smoke screen and say things like all of science is evolution and if you object to evolution you object to science.

We only claim that evolution is science. Not that all of science is evolution.

This then shuts down all discussion and you no longer have a constructive and productive dialog between evolution and non evolutionists.

There is no such thing as a constructive dialog with a Creationist. Most Creationists are Fundamentalists, and Fundamentalists cannot be reasoned with.

The truth is exactly the opposite of what you contend. Evolution is NOT science and true science does not represent evolution theory at all.

According to you, "True" science is that which conforms to your interpretation of scripture. Correct?

In fact true science falsifys evolution. Which is just the opposite of what you are trying to claim. True science does not support evolution at all.

I would love to see the evidence that backs up such assertions, but I know full well you have none.

This is not a science vs religion debate. The true discussion is in showing how science falsifys darwins theory of evolution.

Again. Show us how it does. I know you cannot.

Which of course why we now have neo darwinism, which is an attempt to save darwins theory by mixing it in with Mendal or genetics. The problem is that darwinism is error and you can not change that by mixing it in with truth. A little bit of poison will ruin the whole pot of food.

Show us how "darwinism" is in error. I won't hold my breathe.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Allow me to (re)direct you to Project Steve, the list of scientists (all named Steve) who have degrees in relevant fields who all support the TOE. (I know the link was posted in another thread, but I thought it relevant to the discussion).

Please note, this is only guys named Steve. ONLY!!

And I personally know four scientists named Steve, 1 MD, 2 Ph.D.s and 1 PharmD. who support evolution who aren't on the list.

F.B.

 

[us38]

You have to understand that evolutionists call anything and everything evolution. They do not want a open and honest debate or discussion becasue they know they will lose. So they fight the battle by trying to confuse the issue. The last thing they want is for the anti evolution position to be understood. The last thing evolutionists want is for people to understand just what the anti evolution arguement really is. So they use a smoke screen and say things like all of science is evolution and if you object to evolution you object to science. This then shuts down all discussion and you no longer have a constructive and productive dialog between evolution and non evolutionists.

The truth is exactly the opposite of what you contend. Evolution is NOT science and true science does not represent evolution theory at all. In fact true science falsifys evolution. Which is just the opposite of what you are trying to claim. True science does not support evolution at all. This is not a science vs religion debate. The true discussion is in showing how science falsifys darwins theory of evolution. Which of course why we now have neo darwinism, which is an attempt to save darwins theory by mixing it in with Mendal or genetics. The problem is that darwinism is error and you can not change that by mixing it in with truth. A little bit of poison will ruin the whole pot of food.

You misspelled "creationists" and "creation".

 

[Shadowsun]

You misspelled "creationists" and "creation".

lol, damn you grammar nazis

Always wanted to use this. Not trying to attack you, just bring some flavor to the forum

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

A little bit of poison will ruin the whole pot of food.

A single flaw does not necessarily doom a thoery, it depends on how crucial that aspect is to the viability of the theory. Which part of evolution would that be? Natural Selection, Mutation, and Speciation all been directly observed. The only barrier between the changes seen in these examples and the kind we see in the fossil record is time, i.e. the only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is time.

I do think it is interesting that I have yet to have a serious response to the OP, as the above is merely a (factually baseless) denial of the premise of the OP.

 

[Xeriar]

A little bit of poison will ruin the whole pot of food.

Poison is largely a matter of quantity. Recent evidence suggests that even lead - in extremely minute amounts - is necessary for healthy mental development.

Even still, by that argument, why is creationism even a valid consideration? The only evidence it ever does show ends up being fraudulent, misleading, based on lies, and so on. They can't even form a hypothesis with ID (which should, at least, be possible).

 

[Avatar]

lol, damn you grammar nazis

Always wanted to use this. Not trying to attack you, just bring some flavor to the forum

lol

 

[Dal M.]

You have to understand that evolutionists call anything and everything evolution.

And yet here a creationist is complaining because abiogenesis isn't lumped in with evolution.

It would be so refreshing if creationists could figure out what they disliked about evolution. One minute they're whining that there's some sort of vast overarching conspiracy which forces all evolutionists to toe a party line; the next they're crowing triumphantly that no two evolutionists can agree about anything. One minute they're upset that the definition of evolution incorporates both micro- and macroevolution; the next they're insisting that the tangentially-related discipline of cosmology and the concept of biogenesis should be part of the theory as well.

I realize it's unlikely that creationists will ever come up with a valid criticism of evolution, but can't they at least get together and make sure that their criticisms don't contradict each other?

 

[LittleNipper]

I have always been curious as to how people who don't accept evolution rationalize the fact that they are rejecting the professional opinion of nearly every scientist in a relevant field. Do you really think that you know more about biology than biologists do? Keep in mind that I am not making the argument from authority, any single scientist can be a crank. Rather, I am talking about the consensus of scientific opinion. The occurrance of evolution is scientifically settled, it occurs. It is supported by 140 years of science from all over the world from scientists of different faiths including, *gasp* christians. It is the backbone upon which the modern understanding of biology rests.

Also understand that if you believe that the earth is ten thousand or so years old, you are rejecting nearly everything we currently know about biology, geology, and astronomy. Why don't you just go for broke and deny the existance of the atom? That way you reject everything we know factually about the universe!

Why do you all think you know so much more than all of the experts?

Every SCIENTIST is not presently nor has always been in the past an evolutionist. So clearly not every scientist is wrong. There are some who realize man's learned folly.

 

[Shadowsun]

Every SCIENTIST is not presently nor has always been in the past an evolutionist. So clearly not every scientist is wrong. There are some who realize man's learned folly.

Indeed some are creationist scientists. But they don't really count.

 

[LittleNipper]

Indeed some are creationist scientists. But they don't really count.

Maybe not to you. I'm sure they count to GOD. GOD is really all who matters----------That is the CHRISTIAN revelation -----is it not?

 

[Shadowsun]

Maybe not to you. I'm sure they count to GOD. GOD is really all who matters----------That is the CHRISTIAN revelation -----is it not?

Yes indeed, it seems to be mainly christians who follow these "scientists". But REAL scientists have proven to be useful. I have yet to see a single creationist contribute to our society Not even mentioning the fallacious theories they present.