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.
Why do you care? It's not as if the truth or falsity of the theory of evolution had much direct influence on our daily lives.I reject evolution because it is not true, no other reason.
This discussion is not about the origin of life. You could start a new thread if you wanted.Oh, and Professor Tour invites anyone to refute his OOL claims. No one has because no one can.
Not if they're using the ecological or evolutionary definition:When scientists conflate adaptation and evolution, that is dishonest.
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
Your genome is one in ~6 billion genomes on this planet. It consists of a unique sequence of ~3 billion base pairs.How is it that die hard evolutionists fail to appreciate the mathematics of probability?
If you eliminate all other possibilities, you are left with a Creator. It is conceivable that life arose spontaneously. The chances of this happening are so remote as to classify it "impossible".
A strawman followed by the fallacy of begging the question/false dichotomy.While they say that evolution is random, they avoid admitting that even the evolution process is brilliantly designed
A scientist with a PhD? That's a doctorate in philosophy.
Addition to the Statement of PurposeI don't think it's against forum rules,
but please do report me because you think so.
If I am gone for 30 to 60 days, then you will be justified.
If not...then........
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.
If evidence was water you'd be drowning in it. Not only is there zero evidence for evolution, it can be scientifically proven impossible.
So we have another uninformed zealot that does not understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.Even atheists admit the improbability factor:
Nobel prize winner and evolutionist Dr Francis Crick:
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle" and, "Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts."
Dr Crick was almost right. The origin of life is a miracle. There is no other plausible explanation.
40% of Americans still think Trump is a Christian God-like superstar. A lot of Americans are dumb as rocks. Your point?In spite of the education system being forced to sprout evolution, about 44% of Americans disbelieve it.
Do tell!Time will prove just how wrong evolution is. Many scientists are deserting evolution, and not just Christians.
A little thought reveals its not so obvious.This one is just so elementary, the very reason I don't answer. I see it as some just wanting to waste my time with nonsense.
Maybe I should ask how some would expect me to define something so obvious?
Like what?I am not saying that it is imminent. I am saying that the flaws in evolutionary theory are increasingly being exposed.
Who was this molecular biologist? How do we know that it is not a total scam, like some Project Veritas video?Part of a genuine conversation with a molecular biologist, as recorded by George V. Caylor:
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!”
No reason at all, it seems.I reject evolution because it is not true, no other reason.
Nick Matzke offered to meet with him and explain things to him, but only if he could record the meeting (in case Tour lied about it later).Oh, and Professor Tour invites anyone to refute his OOL claims. No one has because no one can.
You can say that all you want, and you will just continue to come across like a whiny child.I can tell you that evolution is a crock.
A little thought reveals its not so obvious.
For example: do ideas "exist"?
Well, not according to the dictionary def. But its pretty hard to deny the reality of ideas.
Hmm. How do ideas have "objective independent existence" (per the definition of "real" you quoted)?Ideas exist.
How is it that die hard evolutionists fail to appreciate the mathematics of probability? This article Infinite Monkey Theorem - Rational Disciple, which is predicated on the realizations of Stephen Meyer, Doug axe and Bill Dembski,
is just another example of the glaring obviosity that chance is a weak inference.
Atheist Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer, realized this long ago and is famous for the quote:”The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein.”
For anyone who understands the difference between philosophy and the scientific method, is there a better inference to the best explanation for the origin of life? Especially given the multiplicative nature of probabilities re the fine tuning, the Goldilocks zone of the earth, origin of first life, origin of human life and finally the order we see in the universe that is vast and not merely a small patch of order the size of our solar system? I get the probabilistic resource multiplication, but that’s speculative and want to remain scientific.
Thank you for your feedback.
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?