proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Hieronymus]

According to the study I cited earlier the correct number is 0.1% ---- that is one tenth of 1% --- so out of 1000 earth or life scientists we could reasonably expect one young earth creationist .

I wonder if that's accurate, but i assume it is indeed a very small minority..
But you have to consider that openly going against the naturalistic modelling of our reality is unacceptable within the scientific community.
Doing so is committing professional suicide.
What people fail to realize is that it's all naturalism.
definition of naturalism:
the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
So it's a philosophical belief.
But, it's also the paradigm in which science is conducted, that is, the natural sciences, such as physics, chemistry and biology.
So the scientists can only approach it within the natural paradigm.
But it becomes a religion when you make it naturalism or science-ism.
This necessitates the familiar models to involve HUGE amounts of time, to give it more chance of all coming about by chance.
Because there is no room in natural science for intelligent influences.
A supernatural being doing / having done stuff is unapproachable by science.
But what they have us believe is that they know that there never was any supernatural intelligent influence, like a creator, God.
And they're even right in a way, by saying that it's not scientific to try to incorporate God or gods or what have you, in the equation.
But this simply means it's beyond the grasp of science.
It does not mean that God is not a better explanation for the existence of our reality.
In fact, God existing and creating (or having created) is a far better explanation for the existence of our reality than far fetched, ambiguous models with many holes and problems of their own.
But people, myself included, need a couple of years to de-programme the years of indoctrination and suggestion that is and has been bombarded upon in numerous ways.

The irony is that fervent atheists apparently KNOW better, because when you state the obvious (God did it) the arguments shift from science to moral issues.

 

[lesliedellow]

Very difficult, because practically all people have been brainwashed for decades into believing that evolution:
a] is a scientific theory
b] is supported by lots and lots of evidence
c] is not just a naturalistic belief.
d] is something everybody with enough knowledge subscribes to
e] has no serious scientific gaps and problems.
f] etcetera.....

So, good luck with trying to make that person realise that it is in fact:
a] a naturalistic belief
b] a presupposition that was decided upon long ago
c] an outrageous claim that demands strong evidence, and not just people shouting there is so much evidence.
e] a feeble attempt to explain the mind blowing complexity and genius we find in living nature and in the premises for life to be sustained
f] a lot of stuff proudly proclaimed as proof is ambiguous or fabricated.
g] popular science is a travesty of proper science.
h] etcetera...

Good luck.

Todd's Blog: The truth about evolution

There arenn't many YECs who live in the real world, but he is one of the exceedingly few exceptions.

 

[sfs]

Very difficult, because practically all people have been brainwashed for decades into believing that evolution:
a] is a scientific theory
b] is supported by lots and lots of evidence
c] is not just a naturalistic belief.
d] is something everybody with enough knowledge subscribes to
e] has no serious scientific gaps and problems.
f] etcetera.....

So, good luck with trying to make that person realise that it is in fact:
a] a naturalistic belief
b] a presupposition that was decided upon long ago
c] an outrageous claim that demands strong evidence, and not just people shouting there is so much evidence.
e] a feeble attempt to explain the mind blowing complexity and genius we find in living nature and in the premises for life to be sustained
f] a lot of stuff proudly proclaimed as proof is ambiguous or fabricated.
g] popular science is a travesty of proper science.
h] etcetera...

If all of this is true, you should have no trouble offering a better explanation for genetic data than common descent. I eagerly await your contribution to scientific knowledge. I and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are so foolish as to think we actually know something about the subject we spend our lives studying.

 

[Hieronymus]

If all of this is true, you should have no trouble offering a better explanation for genetic data than common descent.

How about common manufacturer?
Couldn't you have come up with that yourself?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Very difficult, because practically all people have been brainwashed for decades into believing that evolution:
a] is a scientific theory
b] is supported by lots and lots of evidence
c] is not just a naturalistic belief.
d] is something everybody with enough knowledge subscribes to
e] has no serious scientific gaps and problems.
f] etcetera.....

So, good luck with trying to make that person realise that it is in fact:
a] a naturalistic belief
b] a presupposition that was decided upon long ago
c] an outrageous claim that demands strong evidence, and not just people shouting there is so much evidence.
e] a feeble attempt to explain the mind blowing complexity and genius we find in living nature and in the premises for life to be sustained
f] a lot of stuff proudly proclaimed as proof is ambiguous or fabricated.
g] popular science is a travesty of proper science.
h] etcetera...

Good luck.

Would you care to try to support any of these claims of yours? I have a feeling that you can't. Well except for d]. In any area of study there will be a few loons.

 

[quatona]

iam trying to prove to a friend that the christian way is the true way but he tells me to give an explanation of evolution and dinosaurs.

any things i could say to prove him wrong?

Sounds like an uphill battle.

 

[pitabread]

How about common manufacturer?
Couldn't you have come up with that yourself?

Unfortunately, bumper sticker level catchphrases don't actually explain anything.

Common descent (i.e. phylogenetics) is an applied science. I've asked creationists in the past to explain how applications of phylogenetics--for example its usage comparative genomics for things like functional annotation of genes--can be achieved under an "intelligent design" paradigm.

However, the responses I've gotten which range from nonsensical to nonexistent only reinforce that there is no equivalent paradigm of design.

 

[sfs]

How about common manufacturer?
Couldn't you have come up with that yourself?

Sure I could come up with that, but I don't see how to use it to make real predictions. So tell me, what does common manufacture predict about the transition-transversion ratio in single-base differences between humans and chimpanzees? Between chimpanzees and bonobos? What's the common manufacturer explanation for correlation between within-family long terminal repeat divergence of endogenous retroviruses and the phylogenetic range that the family is seen in?

Common descent provides detailed explanations and predictions for real quantitative genetic data. Common manufacture seems to provide nothing but a slogan. That's really not much of an alternative for a scientist.

 

[rjs330]

Unfortunately, bumper sticker level catchphrases don't actually explain anything.

For example, common descent (i.e. phylogenetics) is an applied science. I've asked creationists in the past to explain how applications of phylogenetics--for example its usage comparative genomics for things like functional annotation of genes--can be achieved under an "intelligent design" paradigm.

However, the responses I've gotten which range from nonsensical to nonexistent only reinforce that there is no equivalent paradigm of design.

That's because it's a bunch of mumbo jumbo that evolutionists like to throw around as evidence of evolution from a common ancestor. When the fact is there is no real testable verifiable or reproduced evidence for that. It's all assumptive.

Evidence does exist that creatures adapt to their environment in order to survive. That is evolution and it can be observed in action. What had never been observed or tested is evolution from a common ancestor.

 

[pitabread]

That's because it's a bunch of mumbo jumbo that evolutionists like to throw around as evidence of evolution from a common ancestor.

I'm sure that to your average creationist, real science appears to be a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

Ultimately, it's irrelevant what they think.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

so there are biologists that reject evolution or not?

again: science base on evidence. and we indeed have evidence for creation.

Already answered, but to continue rampant flogging of this particular dead horse, what percentage of those same scientists do you suppose accept Intelligent Design In the guise the ID community presents it?

Why do you suppose this alleged "evidence for creation" isn't making any inroads?

In science, a "theory" is as good as it gets. Although "theory" in common parlance means nothing more than a guess, in science it means something very different. An idea rises to the level of theory in science only after numerous, independent tests have been performed and have yielded consistent data. A scientific theory offers insight into the natural world while making predictions about the structure of the natural world. Scientific theories permit us to make sense of random facts. Because science proceeds by disproof rather than proof, in other words because science is reliant on the concept of falsifiability, scientists must be open to the possibility that a commonly accepted theory might, at some time in the future, be replaced by a more finely tuned or more robust theory. But, being open to the possibility of future work modifying and improving our present theories is a far cry from saying that something is "just a theory" and thus not deserving of any special attention.

“Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.” --- Morris, Henry. 1980. The ICR scientists. Impact 86 (Aug.). *http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=163

Response:

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSEd). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.

One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.

..... Oh, Goodness Me! I haven't seen so much WIN! and AWESOMESAUCE! in one post for quite some time!

Very difficult, because practically all people have been brainwashed for decades into believing that evolution:
a] is a scientific theory
b] is supported by lots and lots of evidence
c] is not just a naturalistic belief.
d] is something everybody with enough knowledge subscribes to
e] has no serious scientific gaps and problems.
f] etcetera.....

Have a talk to sfs.

That's because it's a bunch of mumbo jumbo that evolutionists like to throw around as evidence of evolution from a common ancestor. When the fact is there is no real testable verifiable or reproduced evidence for that. It's all assumptive.

Evidence does exist that creatures adapt to their environment in order to survive. That is evolution and it can be observed in action. What had never been observed or tested is evolution from a common ancestor.

You too, go chat with sfs.... Sorry @sfs, don't mean to dob you in so much...

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's because it's a bunch of mumbo jumbo that evolutionists like to throw around as evidence of evolution from a common ancestor. When the fact is there is no real testable verifiable or reproduced evidence for that. It's all assumptive.

Evidence does exist that creatures adapt to their environment in order to survive. That is evolution and it can be observed in action. What had never been observed or tested is evolution from a common ancestor.

It is clear from your post that you do not even understand the nature of evidence. Would you like to learn? It is not that difficult of a topic, yet creationists seem to be scared to death of the topic.

 

[Allandavid]

i am not sure. but even if we are talking about 1% percent, we may dealing with thousands of them. actually it doesnt matter at all, since science is base on evidences and not on surveys.

Then why do you raise the issue of some scientists not accepting it?

 

[Allandavid]

Hey jimmy d

Why Do Giraffes Have Long Necks? ... The giraffe's long neck is a perfect adaptation to the animal's natural habitat. Clearly the giraffe evolved this uncommon and helpful trait in order to reach those nourishing leaves. That's how natural selection works.

Do you agree with this statement?

Cheers

Mr Lamarck...? That you.....?

 

[Allandavid]

Nope and you can't prove evolution from a common ancestor is either. So I guess we both have the same issue.

No...you don't. One has evidence to support it.

 

[Allandavid]

Very difficult, because practically all people have been brainwashed for decades into believing that evolution:
a] is a scientific theory
b] is supported by lots and lots of evidence
c] is not just a naturalistic belief.
d] is something everybody with enough knowledge subscribes to
e] has no serious scientific gaps and problems.
f] etcetera.....

So, good luck with trying to make that person realise that it is in fact:
a] a naturalistic belief
b] a presupposition that was decided upon long ago
c] an outrageous claim that demands strong evidence, and not just people shouting there is so much evidence.
e] a feeble attempt to explain the mind blowing complexity and genius we find in living nature and in the premises for life to be sustained
f] a lot of stuff proudly proclaimed as proof is ambiguous or fabricated.
g] popular science is a travesty of proper science.
h] etcetera...

Good luck.

The same people that have been brainwashed into believing that the earth is spheroidal and orbits the sun...right?

 

[Allandavid]

I wonder if that's accurate, but i assume it is indeed a very small minority..
But you have to consider that openly going against the naturalistic modelling of our reality is unacceptable within the scientific community.
Doing so is committing professional suicide.
What people fail to realize is that it's all naturalism.
definition of naturalism:
the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
So it's a philosophical belief.
But, it's also the paradigm in which science is conducted, that is, the natural sciences, such as physics, chemistry and biology.
So the scientists can only approach it within the natural paradigm.
But it becomes a religion when you make it naturalism or science-ism.
This necessitates the familiar models to involve HUGE amounts of time, to give it more chance of all coming about by chance.
Because there is no room in natural science for intelligent influences.
A supernatural being doing / having done stuff is unapproachable by science.
But what they have us believe is that they know that there never was any supernatural intelligent influence, like a creator, God.
And they're even right in a way, by saying that it's not scientific to try to incorporate God or gods or what have you, in the equation.
But this simply means it's beyond the grasp of science.
It does not mean that God is not a better explanation for the existence of our reality.
In fact, God existing and creating (or having created) is a far better explanation for the existence of our reality than far fetched, ambiguous models with many holes and problems of their own.
But people, myself included, need a couple of years to de-programme the years of indoctrination and suggestion that is and has been bombarded upon in numerous ways.

The irony is that fervent atheists apparently KNOW better, because when you state the obvious (God did it) the arguments shift from science to moral issues.

No...the 'god explanation' is borne out of laziness, rather than efficiency.....

 

[Allandavid]

I'm sure that to your average creationist, real science appears to be a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

Ultimately, it's irrelevant what they think.

Indeed. I imagine that discussions physicists had in preparing to get us into space, to the moon, to Mars would have sounded like mumbo-jumbo to the layman. But their results speak for themselves...

 

[lesliedellow]

That's because it's a bunch of mumbo jumbo that evolutionists like to throw around as evidence of evolution from a common ancestor. When the fact is there is no real testable verifiable or reproduced evidence for that. It's all assumptive.

Carry on lying to yourself, why don't you?

 

[BNM]

Hey! Me and my cousin have been having this discussion lately actually.

I believe in both evolution and creation. Some parts of each make sense, and some parts don't.

I have both pro and anti evolution data that I would like to post here, but I wrote it down on a piece of paper, and it's at home (I'm not home at the moment). Once I go home, I will tell you my views.

thank you