Evolution - why do people disagree?

[ObbiQuiet]

lol... post of the day, and it's only 8am.

It's 11 pm here...

*yawns*

Alright. I have a party tomarrow so I need my rest. Good night, lucid dreams.

(btw, jet black - change your avatar back to the one before this - the one before it suited you perfectly)

 

[Jet Black]

(btw, jet black - change your avatar back to the one before this - the one before it suited you perfectly)

heh... this one was just an experiment, it worked. ok, I'll chance it back later when I get home, since I don't have the file on this machine.

 

[IvoryRain]

Just stop right there! Quickly, unbold that before this gets outta hand and you create another thread arguing weather the theory of evolution is a theory or not!

(edit: and I thought the voltaire quote was: I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.?)

I give, to you, every last blessing I have (15,067) because I believe at this point you need to be blessed much moreso than I.

Please use them visely and with kindness.

 

[Arthur Dietrich]

What ever happened to "EVILution"? This is only a guess, but I have a feeling it was a play on the word "Evolution" because people thought it was evil.

 

[napajohn]

The reason people here get uppity when people say "the theory of evolution" is because it is usually followed by "it's just a theory with no evidence". Then for the next 5 pages we have to explain why they're wrong, what a scientific theory actually is, why the layman is wrong, and throw in a few insults about having a high school level science education.

He didn't say you couldn't ask, just that you need to be careful how you word things, because that first sentance set off a red alert in my brain and my eyes began to roll, a reflex I've aquired after reading that same sentance typed the same way for the nth time.

I'm against it for scientific reasons not biblical ones..there are many who question the evolutionary process and have doctorate degrees ..also there are many scientists and growing in count who question the validity of evolution.

 

[revolutio]

I give, to you, every last blessing I have (15,067) because I believe at this point you need to be blessed much moreso than I.

Please use them visely and with kindness.

Wow. Very good for you, reject materialism.

 

[Bushido216]

Man. What I would do to have you guys around when it comes time for the Bible Club debates.

Will you show up at my school?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I'm against it for scientific reasons not biblical ones..

I find that hard to believe when you're defending the Noachian deluge and promoting sources like trueorigins that are chock full of intellectual dishonesty and false claims such as that "evolutionists" view radiometric dating as "proof of evolution" coupled with unscientific, biased articles.

If it weren't for your religious belefs, would you really have a scientific basis to be "against" the theory of evolution? Would you be able to use science and unbiased, scientific literature to do that? I really doubt it.

there are many who question the evolutionary process and have doctorate degrees

And how many of those people have Ph.D.'s in biology? And of those, how many are creationists due to their religious leanings?

I think there was a thread a little while ago that challenged creationists to come up with someone who accepted creaitonist theories based purely on a science and who did not have a religious motivation to do so. There were none brought up. Another thread involved a poll indicating that creationists are far less likely to reject creationism based upon evidence purely because of their religious beliefs, whereas out of those who accepted evolution, none of them would cling to the theory if it had evidence to falsify it. There is clearly a different mindset between the religiously/emotionally motivated creationists and scientists who accept the theory of evolution.

..also there are many scientists and growing in count who question the validity of evolution.

That's a claim often made, but never substantiated.

 

[Bushido216]

Yeah, Ph.D's like "Dr." Kent Hovind.

 

[napajohn]

I find that hard to believe when you're defending the Noachian deluge and promoting sources like trueorigins that are chock full of intellectual dishonesty and false claims such as that "evolutionists" view radiometric dating as "proof of evolution" coupled with unscientific, biased articles.
whatever dude..intellectual dishonesty...ever see the Living with Dinosaurs and caveman series...Talk about intellectual dishonesty...
I've heard all kinds of **** from you guys so many times..this is all getting boring...Again, I can't prove creation nor can you prove evolution...however we'll teach one as fact and the other as religion...the only thing we can look at is does the evidence today
falsify one or the other or both...I'm open to the data but your opinions and criticisms such as the use of words like "biased" shows that you believe that only creationists are biased and evolutionists are not...where on the talkorigins.cite are the articles that speak against evolution..I haven't found it yet ...all i can say is stick to the evidence..they have a point, make a counterpoint


If it weren't for your religious belefs, would you really have a scientific basis to be "against" the theory of evolution? Would you be able to use science and unbiased, scientific literature to do that? I really doubt it.


And how many of those people have Ph.D.'s in biology? And of those, how many are creationists due to their religious leanings?
So what kind of scientific training did Darwin have?... heres 1 or 2 Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology (ICR)

He has a B.S. in Biology/Chemistry with honors from Tufts University, a Masters in Biology from Harvard, and the Ph.D. in Biology with a major in Ecology and a minor in Biochemistry from Harvard University.

David Menton,
Ph.D. Cell Biology (Technical Advisory Board)
He has a B.A. in Biology from Mankato State University and a Ph.D. in Cell Biology from Brown University. Dr. Menton is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington U. School of Medicine
No they no more than you do and I do thats for sure

Sharon K. Bullock,
Ph.D. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
She has a B.S. in Zoology (summa cum laude) from North Carolina State University and a Ph.D. in Pathology and Laboratory Medicine from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

so does this quote by S Gould a lie then
""A few so called "creation scientists" are much touted as possessing PhDs, but it does not do to look too carefully where they got their PhDs from nor the subjects they got them in. They are, I think, never in relevant subjects"..Intellectual dishonesty? no not evolutionists

I think there was a thread a little while ago that challenged creationists to come up with someone who accepted creaitonist theories based purely on a science and who did not have a religious motivation to do so. There were none brought up. Another thread involved a poll indicating that creationists are far less likely to reject creationism based upon evidence purely because of their religious beliefs, whereas out of those who accepted evolution, none of them would cling to the theory if it had evidence to falsify it. There is clearly a different mindset between the religiously/emotionally motivated creationists and scientists who accept the theory of evolution.
typical evolutionist statements..no basis for a poll is substantiated..wheres your source on this and besides is the value of science based on what people think or what we can verify by experimentation ..looking at our public education system today, its obvious many are not exposed to the arguments against evolution..why?..they are never taught..Google the Miller expriments and no one could tell you the faults that the experiments show and how it
shows the problems of evolution.

That's a claim often made, but never substantiated.

 

[Meatros]

Are these PhDs Christians?

 

[Jet Black]

could you split the quotes up so we can see what you are saying?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

whatever dude..intellectual dishonesty...ever see the Living with Dinosaurs and caveman series...Talk about intellectual dishonesty...

No, I haven't seen it so I can't comment on whether you actually have a valid claim here. However, I don't see why an appeal to a pop-tv series bears any weight here. Pop-tv sources do not always give accurate representations of the sciences.

falsify one or the other or both...I'm open to the data but your opinions and criticisms such as the use of words like "biased" shows that you believe that only creationists are biased and evolutionists are not

You are putting words into my mouth. However when you claim that the things "evolutionists" say are equivalent to some censored term you continue to use over and over again, you don't give the impression of being open to the data. The fact is, however, that creationism has been falsified, so there really is no argument to be made.

...where on the talkorigins.cite are the articles that speak against evolution..I haven't found it yet ...all i can say is stick to the evidence..they have a point, make a counterpoint

You can see for yourself on the front page where it says:

Most advocates of evolutionism subscribe to a set of naturalistic and mechanistic—if not humanistic—philosophical presuppositions, inevitably adding a fundamentalist bias to their perspective. This fact (which they zealously deny) severely erodes evolutionists’ credibility, disqualifying them from any claim to objectivity in matters concerning origins and science. Much of the material published by evolutionists embodies precisely such a pseudo-scientific bias, often articulated under the pretense that it is the product only of purely objective and unprejudiced study.

Source: http://www.trueorigins.org

They claim flat out that the vast majority of scientists inherently have little or no credibility at all simply because they accept the theory of evolution. Their flaming bias is out there for all to see--and it has nothing to do with evidence.

<snipped copy and paste job>

Did you just not even read what I said? You simply copied and pasted that information (without credit) from www.icr.org! All of those creationists are Christians who must adhere to a statement of faith. You can also look at their mission statements such as:

Our passion at the Institute for Creation Research is to see science return to its rightful God-glorifying position, and see creation recognized as a strength by the body of Christ; supporting Scripture, answering questions, satisfying doubts and removing road blocks to the Gospel.

Source: http://www.icr.org/abouticr/intro.htm

...and...

The Institute for Creation Research Graduate School has a unique statement of faith for its faculty and students, incorporating most of the basic Christian doctrines in a creationist framework, organized in terms of two parallel sets of tenets, related to God's created world and God's inspired Word, respectively.

Source: http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm

So no, you have yet to provide examples of people with a Ph.D. in a relevant field who reject the theory of evolution not because of their religious inclinations but rather solely due to scientific evidence. Clearly your examples do not meet that challenge.

typical evolutionist statements..no basis for a poll is substantiated..wheres your source on this and besides is the value of science based on what people think or what we can verify by experimentation

I never stated that the polls were scientific. I specifically stated that it was conducted here in this very forum. However, they are revealing regarding the creationist mindset. Perhaps if you answered the questions yourself that were asked in the poll rather than complaining, we can evaluate that case.

..looking at our public education system today, its obvious many are not exposed to the arguments against evolution..why?

Because there aren't any scientific arguments against evolution. They are religious and /or emotional in nature.

..they are never taught..Google the Miller expriments and no one could tell you the faults that the experiments show and how it
shows the problems of evolution.

The Miller/Urey experiment has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. And it is often taught in historical geology classes (and other courses in geology, as I know from experience), for example, and they do in fact point out why the experiment is valuable and what its shortcomings are. Its shortcomings, however, do in no way show any problems with the theory of evolution. So your claims that it isn't taught and that it is problematic for evolutionary biology are false.

 

[lucaspa]

While I am not well versed in everything, why does it seem so many are against the theory of evolution?

The best explanation I've ever heard was given by Berry and is below:

"Creationists have set themselves apart from other Christians by intimately interweaving their story of the "who" of creation with the "how" of creation. For them, it is the flat earth problem all over again. Creationists have taken a theory of creation which is testable and tied it to an inherently untestable story about God. In the process, they have declared a testable theory to be also inherently untestable. As was pointed out earlier, this works fine, if the testable story is verified. Controversy has arisen because evolution has not verified the creationist's story. At best, research has shown the Genesis account of the "how" of creation to be incomplete. Because the creationists have tied their story of the "how" of creation to their story of the "who" of creation, any doubt cast upon the "how" also casts doubt on the "who." Creationists follow a predictable pattern as they find it easier to deny physical evidence than to deny God. Physical evidence, no matter how overwhelming, can be dismissed as the work of the devil. Christians who find evolution acceptable, or at least not threatening, are those who have managed to keep their stories of the "how" of creation separate from the "who" and "why' of creation.
"In simplest terms, creationists reject the theory of evolution not because evolution is bad, in and of itself, but because for them it threatens, indirectly yet potently, the very existence of God. Scientific arguments in support of evolution will have little if any effect because creationists are not really arguing about the validity of the theory of evolution but the existence of God." Richard W. Berry, The Beginning, in Is God a Creationist? Edited by Roland Frye, pp. 44-50.

 

[lucaspa]

I'm against it for scientific reasons not biblical ones..there are many who question the evolutionary process and have doctorate degrees ..also there are many scientists and growing in count who question the validity of evolution.

Creationists have been saying this ever since 1859. And the number of creationists never increases. But keep up the wishful thinking. In the meantime, go to PubMed and enter "evolution" as your search term and look at all the articles on it. You can even go to Limits and set the search to go in small jumps back in time. Look how the number of articles is increasing over the years.

 

[Raterus]

While I am not well versed in everything, why does it seem so many are against the theory of evolution?

I'm against it, reguardless of religion, because it's abosulety absurd to think we all evolved from some amoeba.

I see how long it took the human race to develop airplanes, something that flies, but birds and bugs and those stupid mosquitos have been flying for ages. Evolutionists, are you trying to tell me that what it too the human race to develop over thousands of years, with intelligence might I add, that through total random processes, life began to fly?

Did you know the best of the best video equipment/computers can't process information anywhere close to what the human eye can do. Are you telling me that oh wonderful evolution randomly developed something better than our latest greatest computers?

Evolutionists need to open their eyes, you have two of them!

--Michael

 

[Raterus]

While I am not well versed in everything, why does it seem so many are against the theory of evolution?

And I've never seen a good explanation of how we went from splitting in two for reproduction, to sperm, eggs, and something that feels real good.

 

[Arikay]

Wether you think its absurd or not, doesn't mean its not true.

•It took many many years for animals to evolve flight. I would guess that it took them more years than it took us. Lets see, from agriculture to flight in around 10,000-12,000 years, I would recomend to go look up a book and find the time between first animal, and first wings.

•Evolution is Not a totally random process.

What does "process information" mean?
I know the Frame Rate equivilent on the human eye is pretty low, its actually why we can watch TV or work on a computer, without being really confused and getting major head aches. High speed video cameras can stop a bullet inflight, or an explosive at the begining of explosion. When was the last time your eyes did that?

I'm against it, reguardless of religion, because it's abosulety absurd to think we all evolved from some amoeba.

I see how long it took the human race to develop airplanes, something that flies, but birds and bugs and those stupid mosquitos have been flying for ages. Evolutionists, are you trying to tell me that what it too the human race to develop over thousands of years, with intelligence might I add, that through total random processes, life began to fly?

Did you know the best of the best video equipment/computers can't process information anywhere close to what the human eye can do. Are you telling me that oh wonderful evolution randomly developed something better than our latest greatest computers?

Evolutionists need to open their eyes, you have two of them!

--Michael

 

[Jet Black]

I'm against it, reguardless of religion, because it's abosulety absurd to think we all evolved from some amoeba.

this seems a bit daft to me, since practically every intermediate, from bacteria to slime moulds to jellyfish to fish exist (note that this is not the evolutionary path that was taken, just creatures in order of complexity).

I see how long it took the human race to develop airplanes, something that flies, but birds and bugs and those stupid mosquitos have been flying for ages. Evolutionists, are you trying to tell me that what it too the human race to develop over thousands of years, with intelligence might I add, that through total random processes, life began to fly?

millions of years... and yes. can't you see how the intermediate steps would confer a survival advantage? the celluar processes have been evolving for billions of years, and by comparison our technology really sucks.

Did you know the best of the best video equipment/computers can't process information anywhere close to what the human eye can do. Are you telling me that oh wonderful evolution randomly developed something better than our latest greatest computers?

it's not random!!!!!!! natural selecton picks the best from each generation and kills the rest. each generation gets better and better and better. one billion generations would produce a fair amount of improvement.

Evolutionists need to open their eyes, you have two of them!

yes, we do. I also using my well evolved brain see you are using an argument from incredulity.

 

[Jet Black]

And I've never seen a good explanation of how we went from splitting in two for reproduction, to sperm, eggs, and something that feels real good.

heh. that's because you are talking about alot of generations of evolution there. nevertheless, we see intermediaries, from bacteria, to yeast that produce both sexually and asexually, to the very primitive sperm egg clouds seen in things like sponges and so on, to more advanced external reproduction in fish, to frogs, birds, monotremes, marsupials and mammals.