Evolution is a Lie

[SkyWriting]

Of course it is significant. It has been that long since any serious thinker abandoned 'creationism" along with heliocentrism, flat earth, blood letting, and various other odd superstitions of the past.

Of course it is limited to the dead ones. There are no live equivalents.

Now lets see you try to identify ONE live scientist who was ONE data point against evolution of for creationism.

The scientific method cannot prove or disprove historical events or processes
and does not even claim to support such.

But if your looking for well educated Creationists, I'll spend a couple of minutes
doing your research for you and maybe find a data point or two.

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/...Test-the-Validity-of-Neo-Darwinian-Theory.pdf

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/...-Yosemite-National-Park-with-a-Warm-Ocean.pdf

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Snake-Hybridization-A-Case-for-Intrabaraminic-Diversity.pdf

 

[SkyWriting]

No, it was not. The point was not to "name a modern scientist who is a Creationist". Those people exist. It was to "name a modern scientist who has made large and respected contributions to science who is a Creationist". Because the whole point of that list of famous scientists was to pin Creationism onto brilliant minds. Because it has been shown that those scientists didn't have an option to look at the modern theory of evolution, calling them "Creationists" does not put any feathers in the cap of Creationism.

You don't get to lie and make up your own quotes just because the original challenge was too tame.

Now lets see you try to identify ONE live scientist who was ONE data point against evolution of for creationism.

And this was met. But I'll toss in one more so you can create your own multi-million data points and see if it works in your favor or not:

When biologically realistic parameters are selected, Mendel shows consistently that genetic deterioration is an inevitable outcome of the processes of mutation and natural selection.

 

[SkyWriting]

And notice the distinct lack of anybody recently? You can take any scientist from before 1859 off the list, as that's when On The Origin Of Species was published. So yes, before we had a good explanation for the origins of life, and before it wasn't complete heresy to speak against church doctrine, yes, scientists who were creationists established common fields of study.

Only a slight fraction of a single percent of scientists today still hold any kind of creationist or ID view.

You would need to support that claim to have any merit.
Intelligent design is quite prevalent in some form or another.

 

[SkyWriting]

Whenever I see "evolution is a lie" it brings back fond memories of one of my favorite posts by JohnR7. I think it sums up creationism very well.
#4

Evolution lies to the people who embrace it (I mean worship it). The theory never actually claims to prove a common biological origin for all forms of life or imply that it forms a framework for speculating on the actual origin. But it implies this by being so universally useful for near-history. Any supernatural intrusion into pre-history is pretty hard to see.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Evolution lies to the people who embrace it (I mean worship it). The theory never actually claims to prove a common biological origin for all forms of life or imply that it forms a framework for speculating on the actual origin. But it implies this by being so universally useful for near-history. Any supernatural intrusion into pre-history is pretty hard to see.

I see that went right over your head.
As I said it sums up creationism very well.
#4

 

[gaara4158]

You don't get to lie and make up your own quotes just because the original challenge was too tame.


And this was met. But I'll toss in one more so you can create your own multi-million data points and see if it works in your favor or not:

When biologically realistic parameters are selected, Mendel shows consistently that genetic deterioration is an inevitable outcome of the processes of mutation and natural selection.

Here's something to get that all straightened out for you.
Digital Genetics and the Theory of Evolution

You would need to support that claim to have any merit.
Intelligent design is quite prevalent in some form or another.

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe you'll find the support you requested in this article. Intelligent design, it seems, is prevalent only in your mind.

 

[Nostromo]

The scientific method cannot prove or disprove historical events or processes and does not even claim to support such.

But if your looking for well educated Creationists, I'll spend a couple of minutes doing your research for you and maybe find a data point or two.

It seems even 'educated' Creationists can't help but misrepresent what they're arguing against, intentionally or otherwise, nor can they understand what methods are not appropriate for the task. Seriously, two soil scientists, one comp sci and a creation scientist using primary school maths to tell us why all the work done in genetics is wrong?

 

[Split Rock]

You don't get to lie and make up your own quotes just because the original challenge was too tame.


And this was met. But I'll toss in one more so you can create your own multi-million data points and see if it works in your favor or not:

When biologically realistic parameters are selected, Mendel shows consistently that genetic deterioration is an inevitable outcome of the processes of mutation and natural selection.

An ICR paper. Wooo! Tell me ask you something, SkyWriting.... why is it that Mendel’s Accountant does not make accurate predictions concerning what we find in the real word? Why is it that this "genetic deterioration" it predicts is no where to be seen in either nature or the laboratory? A good example of this is the long term E coli experiment carried out by the Lenski Lab Summary data from the long-term evolution experiment

A computer program is only as good as the data put into it. Garbage in, garbage out. ICR is very good at producing garbage. And creationists like you lap it up like mother's milk, because it reinforces what you want to believe.

 

[Hespera]

Hespera Of course it is significant. It has been that long since any serious thinker abandoned 'creationism" along with heliocentrism, flat earth, blood letting, and various other odd superstitions of the past.

Of course it is limited to the dead ones. There are no live equivalents.

Now lets see you try to identify ONE live scientist who was ONE data point against evolution of for creationism.

.

Ok so you do recognize that its significant that creationism disappeared from the beliefs of significant thinkers 150 plus years ago.

The scientific method cannot prove or disprove historical events or processes
and does not even claim to support such.

Dont know what you mean by "events or processes" but historical geology, for one deals exactly with processes and events that took place in the past, and it certainly can prove they happened.

so wrong wrong wrong, science is quite good at dealing with things that happened in the past. Or that did not happen, like the so called 'flood".

But if your looking for well educated Creationists, I'll spend a couple of minutes doing your research for you and maybe find a data point or two.

Im not lookinf rot a list,I know there are a few.

I said there are none who have data point one to support creationism or against evolution.

And that none have any basis other than religious fundamentalism for not accepting evolution.

Good luck on your minute or two looking for data. Let me know when you find some.

 

[Hespera]

You don't get to lie and make up your own quotes just because the original challenge was too tame.


And this was met. But I'll toss in one more so you can create your own multi-million data points and see if it works in your favor or not:

When biologically realistic parameters are selected, Mendel shows consistently that genetic deterioration is an inevitable outcome of the processes of mutation and natural selection.

i missed this please repeat what the data point was, this is Nobel stuff.

 

[Hespera]

Evolution lies to the people who embrace it (I mean worship it). The theory never actually claims to prove a common biological origin for all forms of life or imply that it forms a framework for speculating on the actual origin. But it implies this by being so universally useful for near-history. Any supernatural intrusion into pre-history is pretty hard to see.

"Worships evolution"??
Remember when you said this?

You don't get to lie and make up your own quotes

You dont get to make up a group of people and some odd behaviour that you claim they have.

Science never tries to prove a theory, so why bring it up?
ToE is not about origin.

Supernatural intrusion is for you guys, who believe in the invisible and the magical. Of course it cant be seen.

 

[rjc34]

You don't get to lie and make up your own quotes just because the original challenge was too tame.

As the issuer of the original challenge I'm going to call you out on making stuff up. He was right about my original challenge, you're absolutely wrong.

So let me issue it again:

So you're saying that not a single famous scientist who believed in creationism has died in the past 65 years? Well that's almost a generation! I'd like to see all these famous live creationist scientists!

I'm asking for a famous(ie one who has made some sort of groundbreaking and accepted dicovery) scientist (ie a researcher who has published papers in legitimate, respected journals and who has at least post-secondary level of scientific education) who is alive and unambiguously supports creationism.

There, I think that should be clear and unambiguous enough to get ether a proper answer or no answer at all. There's 4 key qualifications in there that you should be able to back up with reliable sources. Good luck.

 

[dlamberth]

Evolution lies to the people who embrace it (I mean worship it).

I for one do worship God and just as God is a reality in my life, so is evolution. But I know enough to see that a tool God uses to create new life forms is not God. People don't worship evolution.

.

 

[AV1611VET]

I for one do worship God and just as God is a reality in my life, so is evolution. But I know enough to see that a tool God uses to create new life forms is not God. People don't worship evolution.

.

Did the angels evolve?

 

[Skaloop]

Did the angels evolve?

Depends. Do angels have DNA (or some equivalent)? Do they reproduce? Is their DNA (or equivalent) subject to mutation? Do they face survival or reproductive pressures?

If the answer to those questions is yes, then I would expect that they would evolve. It the answer is no, then they don't necessarily evolve.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Did the angels evolve?

What angels?

You produce an angel, and we'll tell you if it evolved or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Depends. Do angels have DNA (or some equivalent)? Do they reproduce? Is their DNA (or equivalent) subject to mutation? Do they face survival or reproductive pressures?

If the answer to those questions is yes, then I would expect that they would evolve. It the answer is no, then they don't necessarily evolve.

So an angel would have to meet the specifications as calibrated in your paradigms and stored in your software?

 

[AV1611VET]

You produce an angel, and we'll tell you if it evolved or not.

Oh, really?

This speaks loudly.

What if there's nothing to compare it to?

 

[Nathan Poe]

So an angel would have to meet the specifications as calibrated in your paradigms and stored in your software?

More like an angel would have to fall under criteria determined by someone besides yourself.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Oh, really?

This speaks loudly.

What if there's nothing to compare it to?

Then it shouldn't be all that hard to compare nothing to nothing.