• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Incredible - a single cell

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,194
6,997
71
USA
✟585,424.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I'm sure the video is impressive but to me, a single blade of grass forming by itself for no reason at all and out of thin air is so ridiculous, I don't have the least bit of trouble believing creation over what they call an alternative.

Seems to me the odds of the simplest of life forms coming from nowhere would prohibit anyone from believing anything but creation, so I can only conclude, people want very very badly to believe God doen't exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ItIsFinished!
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I'm sure the video is impressive but to me, a single blade of grass forming by itself for no reason at all and out of thin air is so ridiculous, I don't have the least bit of trouble believing creation over what they call an alternative.

Seems to me the odds of the simplest of life forms coming from nowhere would prohibit anyone from believing anything but creation, so I can only conclude, people want very very badly to believe God doen't exist.
They are claiming that over some period of time a sea sponge will eventually become a dolphin.

I struggle with the concept of the transition of a species from one distinct species to another different species.

I believe that the evidence of the fossil record demonstrates the extinction of all species over time.

There are no exceptions to this rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kenny'sID
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I don't know.

Why do they say a banana, fruit fly and chicken are 60% similar to humans?
All carbon based life forms will have similarities.

All carbon based life forms become extinct and there are no exceptions.

Sea sponges do not develop into dolphins.

Pakicetus was not the grandfather of the whale!
 
Upvote 0

dqhall

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2015
7,547
4,172
Florida
Visit site
✟811,723.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
They are claiming that over some period of time a sea sponge will eventually become a dolphin.

I struggle with the concept of the transition of a species from one distinct species to another different species.

I believe that the evidence of the fossil record demonstrates the extinction of all species over time.

There are no exceptions to this rule.
Over a thousand species disappear each year. I think mankind is altering the face of the earth in such a way that some animals cannot survive. There is documentation of new species appearing. It seems like creation has been happening over a very long period of time. God is at work in this.

In a simple example, some bacteria formed resistance to standard antibiotics. Scientists have worked to try to find ways to thwart these new drug resistant bacteria.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,132
12,991
78
✟433,227.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
sfs said:
So did lungfish and tuna. The question was, why are lungfish more similar to humans genetically than they are to tuna?

I don't know.
Why do they say a banana, fruit fly and chicken are 60% similar to humans?

The number is a bit high, but they are all multicellular eukaryotes, and therefore more closely related to each other than to protists. but the chicken, being a tetrapod, is more closely related to humans, coelacanths and lungfish, than it is to fruit flies or bananas.

In fact, if one uses genetic relatedness, one gets the same family tree of living things first found by Linnaeus, using only phenotypes, to a very high degree of precision.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Over a thousand species disappear each year. I think mankind is altering the face of the earth in such a way that some animals cannot survive. There is documentation of new species appearing. It seems like creation has been happening over a very long period of time. God is at work in this.

In a simple example, some bacteria formed resistance to standard antibiotics. Scientists have worked to try to find ways to thwart these new drug resistant bacteria.
Most certainly God is at work and it is overwhelming and obvious at times.

Just how this creation process takes place and whatever the time intervals actually are, is a mystery that we are not going to unravel.

This problem of the generation life on this planet is just as mysterious as deriving two trillion galaxies from an entity smaller than a ping pong ball, impossible.

The universe has always been a sterile environment, heat and radiation on a massive scale. Life was never an option in this nuclear furnace that we call the universe.

Yet the earth is a goldilocks planet, not too hot and not too cold. A temperature range that is not extreme, and add to that an abundance of water and an ionosphere to boot.

The earth and life are nothing more than an utter miracle.
 
Upvote 0

Melody Suttles

SingPeace
Site Supporter
Sep 22, 2018
217
400
Atlanta
✟108,543.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I think these are all the same people believing in YEC or ID, signing such things whenever possible.

To find 1,000 YEC creationists from all over the world is not a sign of something "growing", they would all fit into one average building.

For example, my country (Czech republic) has 40,000 scientists working in science or research. The statement is signed only by 3 of them. This is how "growing" it is.


Dissent from Darwinism
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/
 
  • Like
Reactions: antiquarian
Upvote 0

Melody Suttles

SingPeace
Site Supporter
Sep 22, 2018
217
400
Atlanta
✟108,543.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,800
7,818
65
Massachusetts
✟389,894.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This is news indeed - on multiple websites - both from Evolutionists and Creationists. Here is another website. Evolutionnews.org
That's an anti-evolution site. This is the same statement they've been collecting names on for many years, right? Pretty feeble, I'd say, given how many scientists there are in the world -- and given that fact that the statement is so weakly worded that I could sign it, too, even though I have no qualms about evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Mathetes66

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 24, 2019
1,030
862
Pacifc Northwest
✟90,277.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
02-12-2019 Lindsay Elizabeth

Earlier this month, an online petition voicing scientific opposition to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution reached more than 1,000 signatures, pointing to an increased consensus among the scientific community.

Nobel Prize Winning Scientist Retracts Key Conclusions That Supposedly Furthered the Plausibility of Darwinian Evolution

The statement, “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism,” is a short statement that reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”


“There are 1,043 scientists on the ‘A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism’ list. It passed the 1,000 mark this month,” said Sarah Chaffee, a program officer for the Discovery Institute, according to The College Fix.

The statement, released by the Discovery Institute in 2001 by those who question Neo-Darwinism, has been signed by scientists from “the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.”

The statement has specific requirements for signatures. In order to sign the document, one must obtain a “Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine,” in addition to agreeing with the assertions it makes.

Hillsong Worship Pastor’s Evolution Comments Spark Fierce Debate Among Christians

The website explains that it is important for there to be such a statement because of the mass media effort to force the belief in Darwinism as truth.

“The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement exists to correct the public record by showing that there are scientists who support an open examination of the evidence relating to modern Darwinian theory and who question whether Neo-Darwinism can satisfactorily explain the complexity and diversity of the natural world,” it notes.

“In recent years there has been a concerted effort on the part of some supporters of modern Darwinian theory to deny the existence of scientific critics of Neo-Darwinism and to discourage open discussion of the scientific evidence for and against Neo-Darwinism,” explains the FAQ page.

David Klinghoffer, a Discovery Institute Senior Fellow, said that the signers “have all risked their careers or reputations in signing” the statement.

“Such is the power of groupthink,” he wrote in an Evolution News article. “The scientific mainstream will punish you if they can, and the media is wedded to its narrative that ‘the scientists’ are all in agreement and only ‘poets,’ ‘lawyers,’ and other ‘daft rubes’ doubt Darwinian theory. In fact, I’m currently seeking to place an awesome manuscript by a scientist at an Ivy League university with the guts to give his reasons for rejecting Darwinism. The problem is that, as yet, nobody has the guts to publish it.”

STUNNING: Study Unwittingly Uncovers Possible Major Flaw in Evolution of Species Theory

It’s also crucial to point out that the signing of the document does not necessarily mean the scientists believe in “alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design,” but simply points towards “skepticism about modern Darwinian theories central claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life.”

If you want to learn more about the “Scientific Dissent From Darwinism” list you can find more information here.


Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory

Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a “Dissent” statement expressing skepticism about Darwin’s evolution theory, sparking fresh controversy over an idea that is at the core of many people’s worldview. The significant announcement, made last month, has been all but ignored by the establishment media. But it is making waves nevertheless.

The dissenting scientists all united around one simple statement. “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life,” the Ph.D.s said. “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.”

The growing rebellion among scientists from a broad range of scientific disciplines suggests the science may not be as settled as evolution theorists claim, according to analysts. Despite enormous risks to their careers and reputations, the number of experts willing to speak out about their skepticism of Darwin’s theory is growing quickly.

And many of the scientists speaking out about this are prominent and highly respected. More than a dozen of the signatories, for instance, are members of various national academies of science, including those in the United States, Russia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and other nations, as well as the Royal Society.

More than a few come from America's most prestigious universities such as Harvard, MIT, Princeton, and Yale. Others come from prestigious foreign universities and research institutions such as the University of Cambridge, London’s Natural History Museum, Moscow State University, Hong Kong University, University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, Institut de Paléontologie Humaine in France, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, and more.


The experts speaking out also represent a broad array of scientific disciplines and fields. These include molecular biology, biochemistry, biology, entomology, computational quantum chemistry, microbiology, psychiatry, behavioral sciences, astrophysics, marine biology, cellular biology, physics, astronomy, math, geology, anthropology, and many more. Many medical doctors are raising questions, too.

“As a biochemist I became skeptical about Darwinism when I was confronted with the extreme intricacy of the genetic code and its many most intelligent strategies to code, decode, and protect its information,” explained Dr. Marcos Eberlin, founder of the Thomson Mass Spectrometry Laboratory and a member of the Brazilian National Academy of Sciences.

Among the prestigious scientists who have signed the statement are evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe; quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia; U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov; and geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, editor emeritus of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum and discoverer of genetic recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and Streptomyces.

The project, known as “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism,” was first launched by the Discovery Institute in 2001. It was started in response to the demonstrably false claim by the tax-funded Public Broadcasting System (PBS) that “virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.” Obviously, that is not true. So Discovery Institute bought advertisements proving it in the New York Review of Books and other venues.

Since then, the number of public dissenters has grown tenfold. Indeed, many prominent scientists now dispute the evolution theory. A recent documentary that appeared on Netflix, Is Genesis History?, features myriad Ph.D. scientists outlining their arguments against evolution and in favor of biblical creation.

This writer attended a conference in Turkey recently that brought together respected scientists from all over the world and from all different religions who argued that the evolution theory was a “hoax.” These included prestigious American scientists who have worked for NASA and leading U.S. universities. It also included Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Mormons, and more.

The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which advocates for Intelligent Design, is still growing its list of well over 1,000 Ph.D. scientists who dissent from Neo-Darwinism and its central tenet — the notion that random mutations and natural selection can generate the massive amount of genetic information present in living organisms. Indeed, critics of the evolution theory say there has never been a documented example of a mutation adding genetic information rather than destroying it.

Neurosurgery Professor Dr. Michael Egnor at State University of New York, Stony Brook, argued that scientists “know intuitively that Darwinism can accomplish some things, but not others.” “The question is what is that boundary? Does the information content in living things exceed that boundary? Darwinists have never faced those questions,” he explained. “They’ve never asked scientifically, can random mutation and natural selection generate the information content in living things.”

And the institute believes that the 1,000 plus scientists who have signed the statement represent the tip of a massive iceberg. “While that number surely represents a scientific minority, it also no doubt vastly understates the number of Darwin-doubting PhD scientists,” wrote Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer at Evolution News.

“When it comes to evolution, persecution is an all too well known fact of academic life. Endorsing Darwinian evolution is the safe careerist move, while questioning it can easily mean the end of your career,” added Klinghoffer. “So for every signer of the Dissent list, there is some multiplier’s worth of private skeptics in science, acting self-protectively. That is beyond reasonable doubt.”

Indeed, the growing willingness of leading scientists to speak out with their doubts about Darwin’s theory of evolution is especially noteworthy because it comes in the face of increased persecution of dissenters.

In 2017, for example, California State University at Northridge (CSUN) fired a Christian scientist after he published explosive evidence indirectly contradicting the theory in a peer-reviewed journal. Basically, Mark Armitage, a microscopist, found soft tissue in a dinosaur bone that was supposed to be around “65 million years old,” strongly indicating that the dinosaur in question died much more recently. The university paid him almost $400,000 in a settlement.

More than a few scientists have argued that peer pressure and fear are preventing an honest examination of the subject. “Because no scientist can show how Darwin’s mechanism can produce the complexity of life, every scientist should be skeptical,” said biologist Douglas Axe, director of the Biologic Institute. “The fact that most won’t admit to this exposes the unhealthy effect of peer pressure on scientific discourse.”

Meanwhile, as more and more scientists speak out, Americans largely continue to reject the evolution theory as well, and interest in the question is surging. Despite the theory being taught to generations of American children in government schools as if it were a fact, recent polls show about half of Americans still believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible's Book of Genesis. In short, they believe that God created humans within fewer than 10,000 years. Only a minority — fewer than 15 percent — believe that godless evolution explains the origin of man, which is what is taught to children at government schools.

“Where there’s a genuine controversy, as there is about Darwinian theory, anyone in search of truth has no choice but to weigh the evidence for himself,” observed the Discovery Institute’s Klinghoffer. "The observation that, beyond doubt, thousands of scientists are skeptical, and that a thousand of them publicly call for further ‘careful examination’ of the question, is one reason every thoughtful adult owes it to herself to consider the evidence without just passively swallowing the majority view.”

Beyond the scientific aspects, there are also profound implications of the theory. One reason religious humanists such as public-education founding father John Dewey latched on to it so fervently is because it allowed them to exclude the existence of a Creator. America's Founding Fathers held as a “self-evident” “truth” that man was created, and endowed by that Creator with certain rights. Humanists such as Dewey and his cohorts, who designed the modern public-school system, rejected that — along with the concept of unalienable, God-given rights that governments exist to protect.

Regardless of what one thinks about the evolution theory, it is still a theory. To force Americans who disagree with this controversial theory to fund its propagation in taxpayer-funded government schools — especially when no alternative is even allowed to be mentioned, and when the implications are so huge — is immoral and wrong. Parents and taxpayers should take a lesson from these courageous scientists and speak out.

Image: screenshot form YouTube video

Alex Newman is a contributor to The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook.

https://dissentfromdarwin.org/


International Scientific Conference Deems Evolution A "Hoax"



 
Upvote 0

Melody Suttles

SingPeace
Site Supporter
Sep 22, 2018
217
400
Atlanta
✟108,543.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
70
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Show us how "Mendel's Law" has proven speciation. Bonus points, if you can tell us which law (there's more than one).

Mendel's laws[edit]

A Punnett square for one of Mendel's pea plant experiments – self-fertilization of the F1 generation
Mendel discovered that, when he crossed purebred white flower and purple flower pea plants (the parental or P generation), the result was not a blend. Rather than being a mix of the two, the offspring (known as the F1generation) was purple-flowered. When Mendel self-fertilized the F1 generation pea plants, he obtained a purple flower to white flower ratio in the F2 generation of 3 to 1. The results of this cross are tabulated in the Punnett square to the right.

He then conceived the idea of heredity units, which he called "factors". Mendel found that there are alternative forms of factors—now called genes—that account for variations in inherited characteristics. For example, the gene for flower color in pea plants exists in two forms, one for purple and the other for white. The alternative "forms" are now called alleles. For each biological trait, an organism inherits two alleles, one from each parent. These alleles may be the same or different. An organism that has two identical alleles for a gene is said to be homozygous for that gene (and is called a homozygote). An organism that has two different alleles for a gene is said be heterozygous for that gene (and is called a heterozygote).

Mendel hypothesized that allele pairs separate randomly, or segregate, from each other during the production of gametes: egg and sperm. Because allele pairs separate during gamete production, a sperm or egg carries only one allele for each inherited trait. When sperm and egg unite at fertilization, each contributes its allele, restoring the paired condition in the offspring. This is called the Law of Segregation. Mendel also found that each pair of alleles segregates independently of the other pairs of alleles during gamete formation. This is known as the Law of Independent Assortment.[4]

The genotype of an individual is made up of the many alleles it possesses. An individual's physical appearance, or phenotype, is determined by its alleles as well as by its environment. The presence of an allele does not mean that the trait will be expressed in the individual that possesses it. If the two alleles of an inherited pair differ (the heterozygous condition), then one determines the organism’s appearance and is called the dominant allele; the other has no noticeable effect on the organism’s appearance and is called the recessive allele. Thus, in the example above the dominant purple flower allele will hide the phenotypic effects of the recessive white flower allele. This is known as the Law of Dominance but it is not a transmission law: it concerns the expression of the genotype. The upper case letters are used to represent dominant alleles whereas the lowercase letters are used to represent recessive alleles.

Which explains why the swift sloths were able to outrun the slow velocirapters

Well I can't give specified details for every single creature. for all we know they lived in higher areas and survived aftger the raptors were destroyed by the flood!

Nope. You're confusing microevolution (variation within a species) with macroevolution (the evolution of new taxa).

Well as I refuse to use the term microevolution (as it muddies the waters) no we have speciation in dogs in rapid rapid order! But that does answe a much earlier question- how did so many dogs come from the flood- man cross breeded dozens of new species!

Your fellow YEC, Kurt Wise disagrees with you. He says the dino/bird series is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." And he actually knows what he's talking about.

Weill show us where this Wise Guy (all pun intended) said this in context and we then can all see why a YEC would believe ina process that is considered to take eons.

Comes down to evidence. You lose. Even AIG and ICR admit the evolution of new genera and often new families.

So you allege! Burt being a faithful reader of ICR for over two decades and AIG for over a decade now- I will need to see where they wrote this! Because everything I read from them they teach against macroevolution on any level!

Here, you're confusing analogy and homology again.

Nope I am talking that the DNA of a bird is QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT THAN A RAPTOR. that THE dna WHILE HOMOLOGOUS IN 75-80% IS ALSO QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT.

We both code identically to produce muscle tissue and organ tissue and hair, but each is qualitatively different from the other!

Same with the failed attempt to place a chicken feather gene in an alligator. It only produced a flayed scute!
 
Upvote 0

Danielwright2311

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2018
2,217
1,352
52
Sacorro NM
✟155,365.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Can you explain why humans, coelacanths, and lungfish are genetically closer to each other than to any other fish?

Yes I can, God created them this way. Are you saying we came from lungfish? and if we did, how did lungfish evolve from being lungfish, and evolve into both male and female humans so we can reproduce babes in the woman womb?

So A lung fish evolved out of the water into a man over time, and some how reproduced other like him with out reproduction?


And why are you arguing with me?

You already admitted not long ago you just want to argue, you don't care about the subject.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,194
6,997
71
USA
✟585,424.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
More than one thousand scientists recently signed an open statement that they are completely severing themselves from Darwinism. Technology and science have come so far that even Atheists in the fields of science are openly admitting everything has been made by design.

Here is an amazing 8-minute video of what they have discovered inside a single cell... made by design so sophisticated that our greatest scientists cannot recreate even the thin outer layer.

This video blew me away/. i hope you enjoy it as well.


Just watched the video.

The cell, something so incredibly complex it's hard to imagine anyone smart enough to create it. and that's just one cell of a whole universe.

Even more amazing than that, some think it all just happened on it's own.

Mind boggling.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Sam91
Upvote 0

Sam91

Child of the Living God
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,341
8,143
42
United Kingdom
✟93,886.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm sure the video is impressive but to me, a single blade of grass forming by itself for no reason at all and out of thin air is so ridiculous, I don't have the least bit of trouble believing creation over what they call an alternative.

Seems to me the odds of the simplest of life forms coming from nowhere would prohibit anyone from believing anything but creation, so I can only conclude, people want very very badly to believe God doen't exist.
What is also amazing is how many forms of life are needed to sustain life. For example, without microbes in the soil, there'd be no humus layer. Without that vegetation will struggle to grow to produce food. However, the microbes need food too.

I've been reading so many fascinating articles on certain immune cells lately. All this didn't happen by chance. Without an immune system 'early' higher forms of life would have died from bacteria.

I can not fathom how great a creator our God is. I mean even Earth's orbit around the sun, and the moon affect climate. The narrow range of temperatures to sustain life. All impossible on its own, no matter how long its given. Even sentience is an incredible feat.

I think one has to be very closeminded to dismiss intelligent design but not ask questions about how the 'big bang' could have started out of nothing... and if there was matter there.. how it originated.

Romans 1:20
 
  • Like
Reactions: ItIsFinished!
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,800
7,818
65
Massachusetts
✟389,894.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes I can, God created them this way.
That's not an explanation. An explanation tells you why things are the way they are, rather than some other way. "God created it this way" could explain any data at all.
Are you saying we came from lungfish?
We share a common ancestor with lungfish, a more recent common ancestor than the one that lungfish (or humans) share with most fish.
nd if we did, how did lungfish evolve from being lungfish, and evolve into both male and female humans so we can reproduce babes in the woman womb?
The common ancestor from which both species evolved also had males and females. For detailed information about how we evolved from a fish, I suggest you read Your Inner Fish, by Neil Shubin.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,800
7,818
65
Massachusetts
✟389,894.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So in 18 years they've gotten much less than 0.1% of the world's scientists(*) to sign an ambiguously worded statement casting doubt on "Darwinism". That's kind of pathetic, actually, since there are far more professing Christian scientists than that.

(*) Only they include doctors as scientists, which means it's much less than 0.1%.
 
Upvote 0