Evolution via random mutations is impossible

[VirOptimus]

You sure about that? What if I can show you 1? or 3? or 6? and so on??

Then what?

You need quite e few more then that to make a point.

But I know that I'm right and you are wrong.

 

[Brightmoon]

See that is what is so convenient about evolution anything you can see that doesn't prove it you say is evolution anything you can't see that does prove it you say is evolution. .

Gaps in the fossil record can be filled in with genetics.

Then why are so many evolutionary scientists having issues with ... uh ...... evolution. I mean your not at least a little skeptical? The scientists in the field sure seem to be.

. Pew did the numbers on creationist biologists a awhile ago. Iirc 99.15% of biologists accept evolution

 

[FormerAtheist]

You need quite e few more then that to make a point.

But I know that I'm right and you are wrong.

As Science Digest reported:

Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.

 

[tas8831]

You sure about that? What if I can show you 1? or 3? or 6? and so on??

Then what?

And what if I can show you Christians dismissing YECism in favor of OECism? Then what? So much dissent, surely creationism is in CRISIS!

 

[VirOptimus]

As Science Digest reported:

Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.

I dont believe you.

 

[tas8831]

As Science Digest reported:

Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.

From an essay from 1979... An essay which, probably not coincidentally, I cannot find anywhere, but I can find that quote on... HUNDREDS of creationist sites. Amazing.


So cool that you are paraphrasing/stealing from this site!

Why, that site even has a rather hackneyed list of people - amazing scientists - who are... creationists and never accepted evolution in the first place! Or who died before the ToE was even a thing (Newton)! Or whose fields of expertise had literally ZERO to do with anything relevant to evolution (like Maxwell)!

You're research skills are AMAZING!

Why - they have amazing scientist Gary Parker - whose science degree is an EdD! Amazing! His bio even claims he was a biologist professor - even though he never was!

Your sources are so totally impressive!

 

[VirOptimus]

From an essay from 1979... An essay which, probably not coincidentally, I cannot find anywhere, but I can find that quote on... HUNDREDS of creationist sites. Amazing.


So cool that you are paraphrasing/stealing from this site!

Why, that site even has a rather hackneyed list of people - amazing scientists - who are... creationists and never accepted evolution in the first place! Or who died before the ToE was even a thing!

You're research skills are AMAZING!

Why - they have amazing scientist Gary Parker - whose science degree is from... the Institute for Creation Science! Amazing! His bio even claims he was a biologist professor - even though he never was!

Your sources are so totally impressive!

So I was right, a lie. How predictable.

 

[Brightmoon]

There are a few people with real science degrees who are creationists. But they teach at creation science accepting schools and don’t do research. They publish papers with science-y sounding words that to uneducated laymen, look like real research papers. These are published in creation science publications which the real scientific community pays little attention to- unless the pseudoscience papers get notorious and then they’re just debunked

 

[tas8831]

As Science Digest reported:

Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.

I still cannot find the article in question, but I did find a site on which someone had done so, and that site's author quotes from the same article:

... “most or all of the Creationists are devout fundamentalist Protestant Christians. Many of them testify that they adopted their creationist positions in childhood, long before their professional training, and have not wavered since.” One of these scientists proudly declares, “I have always accepted the Bible as God’s unchanged and unchangeable word.” Contrary to Thomas’ apparent belief, uncritical acceptance has never been a hallmark of reputable science. Another quoted scientist calls evolution “among the great Satanic lies.”​

Hmmm....

Sort of calls into question using that quote as an argument that scientists are "leaving" evolution... in 1979... eh?

Silly me - I forgot that being honest and open is secondary (maybe even quaternary?) to creationists.

 

[Jimmy D]

Then why are so many evolutionary scientists having issues with ... uh ...... evolution. I mean your not at least a little skeptical? The scientists in the field sure seem to be.

A) They aren't.... except for the creationist fringe, a tiny percentage who prefer publishing "popular" books rather than scientific papers.

B) Science is not decided by popularity contests.

C) You seem to be slightly confused. The link showed observed instances of evolution. Yes, they were still Moths (as you mentioned) just as the humans observed evolving in this thread of Loudmouth's are still humans.

 

[Jimmy D]

I still cannot find the article in question, but I did find a site on which someone had done so, and that site's author quotes from the same article:

... “most or all of the Creationists are devout fundamentalist Protestant Christians. Many of them testify that they adopted their creationist positions in childhood, long before their professional training, and have not wavered since.” One of these scientists proudly declares, “I have always accepted the Bible as God’s unchanged and unchangeable word.” Contrary to Thomas’ apparent belief, uncritical acceptance has never been a hallmark of reputable science. Another quoted scientist calls evolution “among the great Satanic lies.”​

Hmmm....

Sort of calls into question using that quote as an argument that scientists are "leaving" evolution... in 1979... eh?

Silly me - I forgot that being honest and open is secondary (maybe even quaternary?) to creationists.

I don't doubt for a second that "Former atheist" has never read that article apart from the two sentences he copied of some creationist site. You have to be doubly suspicious of the honesty of these sort of quotes when a portion of text in the middle has mysteriously been replaced with "..... ".

A surprising number of creationists seem to have trouble checking sources, presenting any old crap they think supports their "arguments" whether it's true or not.


And this guy's got the gall to get on his high horse and rant about the moral compass of atheists.

 

[tas8831]

I don't doubt for a second that "Former atheist" has never read that article apart from the two sentences he copied of some creationist site. You have to be doubly suspicious of the honesty of these sort of quotes when a portion of text in the middle has mysteriously been replaced with "..... ".

A surprising number of creationists seem to have trouble checking sources, presenting any old crap they think supports their "arguments" whether it's true or not.


And this guy's got the gall to get on his high horse and rant about the moral compass of atheists.

Yup. That is what they do.

One should ALWAYS be suspicious of the accuracy of creationist quotes. I don't recall the details, but I read a list of the 'worst creationist out of context quotes', and one fellow used ellipses to omit something like 20 pages of text...

 

[Ophiolite]

You sure about that? What if I can show you 1? or 3? or 6? and so on??

Then what?

Here are six forms that dissent about evolution can take:
1. "I don't believe this aspect, X, of evolutionary theory has been previously recognised."
2. "I don't believe this aspect, Y, of evolutionary theory has been accorded sufficient recognition."
3. "I believe this aspect, Z, of evolutionary theory has been assigned too much importance."
4. "I don't believe this aspect, XYZ, of evolutionalry theory has been fully developed in detail."
5. "I don't believe that evolution occurred."
6. "I don't believe that evolution occurred without the intervention of a superior intelligence."

Types 1 through 4 are commonplace among scientists. Indeed, if a biologist is not engaged in at least one of those forms of dissent then he or she is no longer practicing science. Types 5 and 6 occur in less than 1% of biologists.

Summary: your belief in a growing rejection of evolution by scientists is a fantasy. Fantasies are great for childhood and leisure time. It's time for you to grow up and start working.

Edited: modified opening sentence to avoid ambiguity.

 

[pitabread]

You sure about that? What if I can show you 1? or 3? or 6? and so on??

Then what?

The real question is how many of them are named Steve?

 

[FormerAtheist]

The real question is how many of them are named Steve?

Who Steve Miller? I would think you would want to be careful bringing him up since he was the guy that came up with the best evidence for biogenesis and it was ... well he backed off of it. I'm pretty sure he is still atheist but not sure he believes in evolution anymore. That'll happen.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Here are six forms dissent about evolution can take:
1. "I don't believe this aspect, X, of evolutionary theory has been previously recognised."
2. "I don't believe this aspect, Y, of evolutionary theory has been accorded sufficient recognition."
3. "I believe this aspect, Z, of evolutionary theory has been assigned too much importance."
4. "I don't believe this aspect, XYZ, of evolutionalry theory has been fully developed in detail."
5. "I don't believe that evolution occurred."
6. "I don't believe that evolution occurred without the intervention of a superior intelligence."

Types 1 through 4 are commonplace among scientists. Indeed, if a biologist is not engaged in at least one of those forms of dissent then he or she is no longer practicing science. Types 5 and 6 occur in less than 1% of biologists.

Summary: your belief in a growing rejection of evolution by scientists is a fantasy. Fantasies are great for childhood and leisure time. It's time for you to grow up and start working.

That's interesting. Could you give a source on that. Because I have never heard that before. I'm on the road so I'll look it up and post sources of mine as well.

 

[FormerAtheist]

I dont believe you.

No its true but that's an old quote from 1979 I think its actually worse now lol.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Yup. That is what they do.

One should ALWAYS be suspicious of the accuracy of creationist quotes. I don't recall the details, but I read a list of the 'worst creationist out of context quotes', and one fellow used ellipses to omit something like 20 pages of text...

I'm not a creationist but keep the compliments a rolling.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm not a creationist but keep the compliments a rolling.

-_- if you aren't a creationist, then why are you posting a bunch of creationist arguments? It's not like you are deconstructing them or anything, you're just posting them.

 

[VirOptimus]

No its true but that's an old quote from 1979 I think its actually worse now lol.

No, it didnt happen then and its not happening now, why do you lie?