Evolution happens

[Astrid]

The question is not whether or not it is scientific. Science has lost much credibility because so much is no longer science in the true sense of the word. The question should be, is it or is it not true? Evolution is unproveable. More, there are so many flaws in the concept that evolution should be scrapped as a theory.

So called science is now accepting that gender is a choice that people can make. Not only that, some scientists are being persecuted because they state that there are only two sexes.

You don't have to buy anything.

CEH – Creation Evolution Headlines
Science Against Evolution Official Home Page

All that, and it should be so easy to disprove.
But nobody has gotten a Nobel.
Not one fact contrary to ToE.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, but disproving it does?

Evolution, in my opinion, will wax stronger and stronger, culminating in the Tribulation period.

Then Jesus will come back and end it once and for all.

 

[Shemjaza]

Evolution, in my opinion, will wax stronger and stronger, culminating in the Tribulation period.

Then Jesus will come back and end it once and for all.

That would leave some extremely confused sincere TE Christians.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The Evolution of a Creationist | Jobe Martin | Creation vs. Evolution

From you link: "ramifications of evolutionary thought on such issues as abortion, same-sex union, euthanasia, and moral relativism. "

Evolution has nothing to do with any of these things. The creator of that site is just using "evolution" as a scapegoat to project things they don't like onto.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A famous math scientist, who was an evolutionist, once said, in response to the fact that there is no mathematical possibility that a DNA molecule can come into existence by chance:

Math *ISN'T* science. "Math scientist" isn't a real thing.

The "probability argument" is just a serious misunderstanding about DNA, particularly that a *specific* sequence is somehow necessary a priori.

 

[Aussie Pete]

All that, and it should be so easy to disprove.
But nobody has gotten a Nobel.
Not one fact contrary to ToE.

How about that. And there are zero facts about Evolution. I think we should consult the Maker, God. Oh. He says that he made everything.

At least Darwin had some excuse. Far less was known about the amazing complexity of life in his time. Evolution is impossible. That's the truth. I don't want a Nobel prize for stating the bleeding obvious.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Math *ISN'T* science. "Math scientist" isn't a real thing.

The "probability argument" is just a serious misunderstanding about DNA, particularly that a *specific* sequence is somehow necessary a priori.

Maths isn't science. Neither is evolution research. Show me one iota of evidence that evolution is taking place now (as someone asserted). I'd certainly trust a mathematician's conclusions. I can't say the same about evolutionist conclusions. They can't even agree among themselves.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Evolution, in my opinion, will wax stronger and stronger, culminating in the Tribulation period.

Then Jesus will come back and end it once and for all.

Quote from David R Pogge, aka Do-While Jones:

"For over 25 years we have published more than 300 monthly newsletters containing more than 800 articles commenting upon news articles in the popular and professional literature regarding the theory of evolution. Twenty years ago, our “six-page newsletter” often ran 8 to 12 pages because there was so much to comment on. Sometimes, we had to promise to say more about the topic in future newsletters because we lacked space to address those issues that month. We’ve gone back and added links to those articles which fulfilled those promises.

In recent years it has been hard to find enough evolutionary news for us to fill just 6 pages. The theory of evolution is dying because the preponderance of scientific evidence is against the theory of evolution.

We have summarized that evidence in our final newsletter. The HTML version of our final newsletter contains links to some of our favorite articles from the past. The PDF version contains those links in footnotes, and is better suited to be printed.

From time to time, we might post new articles on the ScienceAgainstEvolution.INFO Facebook page, it events warrant them."

 

[Bradskii]

I despair...

 

[Whyayeman]

I don't want a Nobel prize for stating the bleeding obvious.

Well, you won't get one!

Let's face it, you just don't believe in evolution!

Fortunately belief and science don't much go together. I am reminded of the lady who when first being told that mankind was descended from apes declared: 'Let us hope that it doesn't become widely known.'

That apes and human beings have a common ancestor is a much simpler and plausible concept than the Garden of Eden myth. And yet even there we can see the seed of evolutionary science; God takes some of Adam's DNA and creates Eve...

 

[Shemjaza]

How about that. And there are zero facts about Evolution. I think we should consult the Maker, God. Oh. He says that he made everything.

At least Darwin had some excuse. Far less was known about the amazing complexity of life in his time. Evolution is impossible. That's the truth. I don't want a Nobel prize for stating the bleeding obvious.

Patterns of Genetics.
Fossils.
Real Time Variations of Modern Populations.

Those are all facts and evidence.

Creationism has religious conviction of a particular interpretation of a religious text.

If evolution is impossible you should be able explain and demonstrate why. That you deeply and personally believe that it isn't true is not evidence.

 

[Astrid]

Patterns of Genetics.
Fossils.
Real Time Variations of Modern Populations.

Those are all facts and evidence.

Creationism has religious conviction of a particular interpretation of a religious text.

If evolution is impossible you should be able explain and demonstrate why. That you deeply and personally believe that it isn't true is not evidence.

Someone would get the Nobel he claims to
scorn.

 

[Whyayeman]

Fossils.

Ah, fossils are interesting. Their study began in the 18th and 19th Centuries when mining, canal building and railways were being developed. Engineers wanted a way of predicting what lay under the terrain where they were planning canals, tunnels and cuttings for for their projects. Fossil studies provided a reliable guide.

Evolution goes a long way in explaining the sequences of fossil remains and strongly confirms patterns of development from simple to complex in the biological sciences.

For Creationists - Young Earth or other - they must have been placed in the earth in the first six days of Genesis. But why?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Maths isn't science. Neither is evolution research.

Half right, half wrong.


Whether you like it or not, the research on evolution is definitely science.

You can reject the results. You can reject all science as useless. You can decide you prefer you bible-based answer. But...

None of those makes the study of evolution not scientific.

(Note that I am not talking about the conclusions or discoveries of science about evolution, only the process of the study of evolution by science.)

 

[Ophiolite]

I originally responded
That is your opinion.
Edit: I originally responded your comment thinking it was the someone else. I apologize for being sloppy.

I admit that the definitions in the article basic and not as robust as yours but I mistakenly though I was responding to someone who had little or no knowledge of evolution and going into detail would be a waste of time.

No problem. I've possibly done the same thing in the past.

I try to post for the other participants in a thread and for the lurkers. If I only posted when I thought the object of the reply would be positively influenced by it my post count would shrink dramtically.

 

[Ophiolite]

I despair...

The word literally is often abused today, but I am literally sitting here on the verge of crying when I see the public expression of gross ignorance, ignorance that is consistently and persistently displayed, even though evidence has been presented time and again. Stubborn self delusion is sickening to witness and a stain on humanity. I could express my emotions more colourfully, but why inflict it further on others. Besides, you said it much more eloquently in two words. Thank you for reminding me that I am not alone in my disgust.

 

[ruthiesea]

2) Science is naturalistic by nature. It doesn't include even the hint of a possibility of a creator or supernatural God. If God exists, then that SHOULD change the game. Naturalistic processes should then be thrown out the window. What you say took billions of years could've taken the quick snap of God's finger.

3) There are creationist scientists who have PhDs and study in the realm of science. Just because they don't accept your status quo doesn't mean they aren't scientists. They just see the world differently.

Science studies the universe. It does not study the supernatural. To study G-d scientifically could be considered blasphemous.

No, creationist scientists, an oxymoron, do not accept the science status quo. Neither do actual scientists. Science changes as more data is gathered and new discoveries are made. Creationists do not. The answer for them is always, “what does the Bible say?””

Science assumes that we don’t have all of the answers and sometimes don’t even know what questions to ask. Creationism assumes that the Bible has all of the answers and, therefore, does not admit that there are any questions.

“Teach thy tongue to say 'I do not know,' and thou shalt progress.” ~ Moses Ben Maimon

 

[AV1611VET]

The word literally is often abused today, but I am literally sitting here on the verge of crying when I see the public expression of gross ignorance, ignorance that is consistently and persistently displayed, even though evidence has been presented time and again. Stubborn self delusion is sickening to witness and a stain on humanity. I could express my emotions more colourfully, but why inflict it further on others. Besides, you said it much more eloquently in two words. Thank you for reminding me that I am not alone in my disgust.

Tell that to Frances Kelsey who, despite being provided evidence that Thalidomide was a legitimate prenatal wonder drug, refused to sanction it in the United States until further tests were performed.

(In fact, that's probably what all the other scientists thought among themselves: "I despair. We've presented evidence to her consistently and persistently, and still she wants more. I'm literally sitting here on the verge of crying.")

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Tell that to Frances Kelsey who, despite being provided evidence that Thalidomide was a legitimate prenatal wonder drug, refused to sanction it in the United States until further tests were performed.

(In fact, that's probably what all the other scientists thought among themselves: "I despair. We've presented evidence to her consistently and persistently, and still she wants more. I'm literally sitting here on the verge of crying.")

No, not the same thing in the slightest.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Tell that to Frances Kelsey who, despite being provided evidence that Thalidomide was a legitimate prenatal wonder drug, refused to sanction it in the United States until further tests were performed.

(In fact, that's probably what all the other scientists thought among themselves: "I despair. We've presented evidence to her consistently and persistently, and still she wants more. I'm literally sitting here on the verge of crying.")

Which has *nothing* to do with evolution and is only presented as you ongoing campaign of denigration of scientists. We object.