Can you name a few of thse secular scientists who oppose evolution?peschitta_enthusiast said:
I accept evolution and mainstream science but it has had little affect on my faith. Evolution is not equal to atheism.
Upvote
0
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.
Can you name a few of thse secular scientists who oppose evolution?peschitta_enthusiast said:And what replicated before RNA?
Also, that statement is true, evolution has never been proven. Even secular scientists oppose it. there is too much wrong with it, like the many many missing links. Also, with evolution, there is the added "benefit" that you want to believe it, to take away God, to take away accountability.
Do note that we are NOT dealing with infinite time
Agaib rubbish, your saying DNA can't exist on the Earth because of our atmosphere, are yo even aware of how little sense that makes.Paul-martin said:No it haven't, after what we know today the building block could not apear on earth because of our atmosphere.
Aeschylus said:Agaib rubbish, your saying DNA can't exist on the Earth because of our atmosphere, are yo even aware of how little sense that makes.
I wasn't talking about dna, for life to appear in earth there must have been condition for the buliding block of life to appear like amino acid, but at the time we didnt had that atmosphere, which mean that the hydrogen molecules would been destroyed of the by the Ultraviolet radiation form the sun.
that is abiogenisis which is related to but seperate from evolution.Paul-martin said:I wasn't talking about dna, for life to appear in earth there must have been condition for the buliding block of life to appear like amino acid, but at the time we didnt had that atmosphere, which mean that the hydrogen molecules would been destroyed of the by the Ultraviolet radiation form the sun.
This is just one of many problem......
1. This example refers to the erroneous use of C-14 dating on mollusks, as this dating method only works on such organic samples that derive their carbon from the atmosphere. Mollusks don't make their shells out of atmopsheric carbon, but rather from marine reservoirs containing older carbon.peschitta_enthusiast said:As for aging of fossils etc, that is a joke. Present-day molluscs have been aged to be THOUSANDS of years old, showing how unreliable dating methods are.
Note that this was the original question. So far, no relevant answers.notto said:Can you name a few of thse secular scientists who oppose evolution?
If it's the Matthew Lancaster here (http://biblical-truth.netfirms.com/) then that's not an example of a secular scientist who opposes evolution.Off the top of my head I have one, the book should have more examples. Dr. Matthew Lancaster of Knightsbridge university
This is not a scientific organization, nor is it a secular one. It is an organization of Christians trying to defend young earth creationism. They even admit that they adhere strictly to the tenets of young earth creationism and will assume that all the evidence that contradicts their position must be wrong. In other words, they are intellectually dishonest.Institute for Creation Research
Again, this is not a secular or scientific organization. This is essentially evangelism masquerading as science.Discovery Institute
http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/educat.htmlEugene Garfield and so forth
Unable to verify. I can't seem to find a relevant Andrew Roth. Perhaps you should have provided information to back up your claims rather than just listing names.And then the Eastern ones like Andrew Roth also
Misrepresentation. The claim that "supernatural intervention played a role" does not negate evolution. Furthermore, the poll seems to be evaluating the claim of abiogenesis, not evolution. It is true that almost all scientists accept (not believe) evolution. A Gallup Poll in 2002, if I recall correctly, gave the result that 95% of all scientists accept the theory of evolution (and obviously a larger percentage among scientists in a relevant field).peschitta_enthusiast said:Some incorrectly claim that almost all scientists believe in evolution. The only survey of scientists of which I am aware, involved chemists. Less than half (48.3%) said that it was possible that humans evolved in a continuous chain of development from simple elements in a primordial soup. A slight majority (51.7%) said that supernatural intervention played a role. [Murray Saffran, Why Scientists Shouldnt Cast Stones, The Scientist, 5 September 1988, p. 11.]
You should cite sources when you copy and paste, expecially if they have the I claim in them.peschitta_enthusiast said:Some incorrectly claim that almost all scientists believe in evolution. The only survey of scientists of which I am aware, involved chemists. Less than half (48.3%) said that it was possible that humans evolved in a continuous chain of development from simple elements in a primordial soup. A slight majority (51.7%) said that supernatural intervention played a role. [Murray Saffran, Why Scientists Shouldnt Cast Stones, The Scientist, 5 September 1988, p. 11.]
Explain what abiogenisis is thx....Aeschylus said:that is abiogenisis which is related to but seperate from evolution.
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?