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.
A dictionary definition seems wholly inadequate for such an important philosophical concept. Can you be more expansive?
Great techniques for participating in a productive way in a discussion forum. Congratulations.Not that is matters so much here with such a silly question that no one else seems to want to define, so I won't be answering anyway, but you're on my ignore list when it come to replies.
In spite of the education system being forced to sprout evolution, about 44% of Americans disbelieve it. Many scientists know evolution is garbage, but fear reprisals if they go public. Scientist have lost tenure and grants because they reject the evolution myth. Professor James Tour, who rejects evolutionary origin of life concepts, advises his students to keep quiet about their rejection of evolution as it will affect their careers. If evolution is so obviously true, why do people have to bully those who do not accept it? Obviously it is not nearly as obvious as evolutionists claim. I don't subscribe to intelligent design. I believe God created everything, not some impersonal force or power.And a large percentage (perhaps almost all) of those Christians, Deists, Muslims and Jews think ID is crap. What you are trying to do is turn the ID/evolution debate into a cosmic struggle between theism and atheism. It's nonsense.
I go there first. If I feel that definition is clear enough about my precise meaning, I'll use it. But in some cases it may be inadequate.I go with the dictionary when it comes to these things...you?
I don't have that much intelligence, but there are many brilliant people who come up with all kinds of ideas. Sir Fred Hoyle could not accept OOL theories so he thought maybe life came from outer space. Except that does not explain where that life came from. I've studied the arguments for evolution, but they all fall at the first hurdle. Life does not spontaneously arise. Miller thought maybe lightning sparked some molecules into life. I know about lightning. It is highly destructive. The Frankenstein movie was interesting but not exactly scientific.How do you eliminate the possibilities you haven't thought of?
In spite of the education system being forced to sprout evolution, about 44% of Americans disbelieve it.
Time will prove just how wrong evolution is. Many scientists are deserting evolution, and not just Christians. I was blessed to be taught both as a possible scenario. I was not a Christian. My dad was an atheist and pushed me towards evolution. I could not accept evolution.40% per the last Gallup poll. However, demographics indicate a decline given that creationist demographics are tilted towards both older and less educated cohorts. Time is not going to be kind to creationist beliefs.
It may well do that, depending on the reasons for rejecting it. Tour is a particularly good example. He is associated with the Discovery Institute, which concocted ID as a Trojan Horse for biblical creationism. I wouldn't trust him to do honest science.In spite of the education system being forced to sprout evolution, about 44% of Americans disbelieve it. Many scientists know evolution is garbage, but fear reprisals if they go public. Scientist have lost tenure and grants because they reject the evolution myth. Professor James Tour, who rejects evolutionary origin of life concepts, advises his students to keep quiet about their rejection of evolution as it will affect their careers.
The theory of evolution is not absolute truth, it's a scientific theory--which means that like every other scientific theory it's accepted provisionally pending further evidence,If evolution is so obviously true, why do people have to bully those who do not accept it? Obviously it is not nearly as obvious as evolutionists claim.
So do I, but I see no reason to reject evolution because of it.I don't subscribe to intelligent design. I believe God created everything, not some impersonal force or power.
Time will prove just how wrong evolution is.
Many scientists are deserting evolution, and not just Christians.
I am not saying that it is imminent. I am saying that the flaws in evolutionary theory are increasingly being exposed. When the scientific establishment uses similar tactics to Kim Jong-Un, it is not surprising that a lot of scientists are not game to publicly state their anti evolutionary stance.Creationists have been claiming this for over a hundred years now: The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism
There's even a quote on that page from 1904 that could basically substitute for what you just posted.
No, they aren't. This is just creationist propaganda.
In reality, evolution remains a foundational component of modern biology, continues to be taught as such, and has real-world applications. It's not going anywhere.
I reject evolution because it is not true, no other reason.It may well do that, depending on the reasons for rejecting it. Tour is a particularly good example. He is associated with the Discovery Institute, which concocted ID as a Trojan Horse for biblical creationism. I wouldn't trust him to do honest science.The theory of evolution is not absolute truth, it's a scientific theory--which means that like every other scientific theory it's accepted provisionally pending further evidence,So do I, but I see no reason to reject evolution because of it.
I am not saying that it is imminent. I am saying that the flaws in evolutionary theory are increasingly being exposed. When the scientific establishment uses similar tactics to Kim Jong-Un, it is not surprising that a lot of scientists are not game to publicly state their anti evolutionary stance.
Part of a genuine conversation with a molecular biologist, as recorded by George V. Caylor:
S: “I’m a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica. Seventy volumes, thousands and thousands of pages of small print words.”
G: “With the computer power, you can just use ‘spell check’!”
S: “There is no ‘spell check’ because we don’t know yet how the words are supposed to be spelled. We don’t even know for sure which language. And it’s not just the ‘spelling error’ we’re looking for. If any of the punctuation is out of place, or a space out of place, or a grammatical error, we have a mutation that will cause a disease.”
G: “So how do you do it?”
S: “We are learning as we go. We have already ‘read’ over two articles in that encyclopedia, and located some typos. It should get easier as time goes by.”
G: “How did all that information happen to get there?”
S: “Do you mean, did it just happen? Did it evolve?”
G: “Bingo. Do you believe that the information evolved?”
S: “George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it evolved. It was engineered by ‘genius beyond genius,’ and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise. A bit like Neil Armstrong
believing the moon is made of green cheese. He’s been there!”
G: “Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?”
S: “No. It all just evolved.”
Sam goes on to say that he and most others in his field will not deny evolution exactly for the reasons I've given previously. He sees his work as far more valuable than trying to change the mindset of evolutionists. I have no such qualms. I can send you the complete conversation if you wish.
I reject evolution because it is not true, no other reason.
Oh, and Professor Tour invites anyone to refute his OOL claims. No one has because no one can.
I am not saying that it is imminent. I am saying that the flaws in evolutionary theory are increasingly being exposed. When the scientific establishment uses similar tactics to Kim Jong-Un, it is not surprising that a lot of scientists are not game to publicly state their anti evolutionary stance.
I can tell you that evolution is a crock. Non-evolutionists are doing the same work with just as good results. James Tour has restored a rat's severed spine to where the rat has almost normal mobility. The tech is patented and will eventually be used for human injuries. Non evolutionists are designing gene therapies to solve inherited genetic disorders. When you can tell me how life came into being by some spontaneous event, I may change my mind. Until then (and science has been striving for 60 years to find out), I will not accept evolution. Oh, I'm 68. OOL research is no further advanced than it was when Miller first started out. There is only one reason that scientists embrace evolution. It gives them an excuse to reject God. I can assure that the excuse will not hold good in the next life.Uh-huh. Here's why none of that is true.
Modern biological evolution (including common ancestry) has real-world application especially with the advent of genomics over the last few decades. This includes areas like pharmaceuticals/drug discovery pipelines, medical research, agriculture, conservation biology, etc. Companies have even gone so far as to patent methodologies directly based on the theory of evolution.
If evolution were as false as creationist claimed it was, the first place you'd hear about it would be industry. Those in industry have a vested interest in the best understanding of biology possible; they have no reason to prop up an imaginary conspiracy just for the sake of it. In effect, modern bio-industry is the canary in the gold mine for anything in biology. Yet, when I look to industry I don't see anything creationists claim to be true about evolution being false or there being a conspiracy to hide the truth.
This is what James McCarter, founder and CEO of Divergence Inc. (a former biotech firm that was acquired by Monsanto, one of the world's leading biotechnology firms). Is he part of your conspiracy too?
Evolution, in addition to being solid science, provides us with a practical and powerful tool-kit. Applied techniques based on evolution play central roles in the biotechnology industry, and in recent advances in genomics and drug discovery. Bioinformatics, the application of computers to biology and one of the hottest career opportunities in science, is full of evolution-based computer code. Tens of thousands of researchers in the multibillion-dollar field of biomedical research and development use evolution-based discoveries and concepts as a routine part of their important work.
...
What does evolution have to do with biotechnology? As the president of a biotech firm in St Louis, I can tell you that evolutionary biology is an integral part of what we and other companies do. I hire scientists who are well-trained in molecular evolutionary biology; who know how to recognize the business end of enzymes simply by looking at DNA sequences; who know which changes in a protein are important; who can design research tools based on the way a species manipulates the genetic code. Today, these skills are as important to discoveries in the laboratory as knowing how to use a microscope, and it takes an understanding of evolution to master them.
Evolution is a Winner -- for Breakthroughs and Prizes | National Center for Science Education
Cool story. Experience suggests treating 'Institute for Creation Research' publications with maximum scepticism.I am not saying that it is imminent. I am saying that the flaws in evolutionary theory are increasingly being exposed. When the scientific establishment uses similar tactics to Kim Jong-Un, it is not surprising that a lot of scientists are not game to publicly state their anti evolutionary stance.
Part of a genuine conversation with a molecular biologist, as recorded by George V. Caylor:
S: “I’m a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica. Seventy volumes, thousands and thousands of pages of small print words.”
G: “With the computer power, you can just use ‘spell check’!”
S: “There is no ‘spell check’ because we don’t know yet how the words are supposed to be spelled. We don’t even know for sure which language. And it’s not just the ‘spelling error’ we’re looking for. If any of the punctuation is out of place, or a space out of place, or a grammatical error, we have a mutation that will cause a disease.”
G: “So how do you do it?”
S: “We are learning as we go. We have already ‘read’ over two articles in that encyclopedia, and located some typos. It should get easier as time goes by.”
G: “How did all that information happen to get there?”
S: “Do you mean, did it just happen? Did it evolve?”
G: “Bingo. Do you believe that the information evolved?”
S: “George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it evolved. It was engineered by ‘genius beyond genius,’ and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise. A bit like Neil Armstrong
believing the moon is made of green cheese. He’s been there!”
G: “Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?”
S: “No. It all just evolved.”
Sam goes on to say that he and most others in his field will not deny evolution exactly for the reasons I've given previously. He sees his work as far more valuable than trying to change the mindset of evolutionists. I have no such qualms. I can send you the complete conversation if you wish.
When someone confuses evolution with abiogenesis as consistently as you, it's a strong indication that they're ignorant of both - unless it's deliberate, in which case dishonesty is the more likely explanation.I can tell you that evolution is a crock. Non-evolutionists are doing the same work with just as good results. James Tour has restored a rat's severed spine to where the rat has almost normal mobility. The tech is patented and will eventually be used for human injuries. Non evolutionists are designing gene therapies to solve inherited genetic disorders. When you can tell me how life came into being by some spontaneous event, I may change my mind. Until then (and science has been striving for 60 years to find out), I will not accept evolution. Oh, I'm 68. OOL research is no further advanced than it was when Miller first started out. There is only one reason that scientists embrace evolution. It gives them an excuse to reject God. I can assure that the excuse will not hold good in the next life.
When scientists conflate adaptation and evolution, that is dishonest.When someone confuses evolution with abiogenesis as consistently as you, it's a strong indication that they're ignorant of both - unless it's deliberate, in which case dishonesty is the more likely explanation.
Just sayin'.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?