Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history

[jlujan69]

Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history - Yahoo! News

 

[Tiberius]

The only debate about whether evolution takles place or not is among those who do not know anything about it. We don't need more evidence to end that debate, we need to educate people.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history - Yahoo! News

I believe evolution will be prominent throughout the Tribulation, and that the Antichrist will use it so effectively that scientists will flock to take his mark.

In fact, I believe the Antichrist will be so proficient in making evolution so easy to understand, that he will even put on a display of "abiogenesis"; thus showing a abiogenesis → evolution link.

Revelation 13:15a And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak,

Just a supposition.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I believe evolution will be prominent throughout the Tribulation, and that the Antichrist will use it so effectively that scientists will flock to take his mark.

Will he do it with gravity and thermodynamic laws too?

In fact, I believe the Antichrist will be so proficient in making evolution so easy to understand, that he will even put on a display of "abiogenesis"; thus showing a abiogenesis → evolution link.

So then will you believe in evolution and abiogenesis?

Revelation 13:15a And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak,

Spooky.

Just a supposition.

Those are easy to make. But still might want to be careful:

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book

just sayin'....

 

[AV1611VET]

Will he do it with gravity and thermodynamic laws too?

Possibly ...

Daniel 11:38a But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces:

So then will you believe in evolution and abiogenesis?

I won't be h...

Oh, I get it -- cute, real cute!

 

[Blayz]

I think Leakey is vastly overestimating the common sense of the general public.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

I think that this idea has one major issue. Namely, it assumes that the debate over evolution is one that can be solved with evidence, when in actuality it isn't. This is a debate wherein many on one side believe that their faith is challenged by the possibility of the other side being correct. For various other reasons (ranging from simply growing up in the faith to complicated philosophical arguments), creationists want to remain Christian. As a result, they choose to reject evolution.

I don't believe that there is a conflict between evolution and Christianity, for the record, but I also don't think that people understand very well the root reason why some believe in Young Earth Creationism. It's a combination of that and, in some cases, a lack of knowledge regarding evidence for evolution (holding a doctorate is no guarantee that you're knowledgeable about some of the better evidence for evolution, if you've never had a biology course at the post-secondary level). Some would choose not to believe in YEC if presented with the evidence, and some would choose to hold to YEC regardless. People are complicated, and reducing them to machines where you put evidence in and get a result out is not a correct point of view.

 

[Norman321]

The only debate about whether evolution takles place or not is among those who do not know anything about it. We don't need more evidence to end that debate, we need to educate people.

No one argues with bottle neck effect. No one argues with common ancestor. It is Darwin's theory, descent with modification that we argue against and that is because you lack evidence.

Of course if people do not enter the discussion. If they still endorse catastrophism even though it was replaced with gradualism 200 years ago. Then of course your not going to change their mind no matter what you come up with. The evidence is already overwelming in the catastrophism vs gradualism debate.

 

[Norman321]

I think Leakey is vastly overestimating the common sense of the general public.

The quote is: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American" Then there is Poe's law: "it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history - Yahoo! News

The debate is history, at least in the scientific community. Among the general populace of the developed world, it's only fringe religious groups (and, bizarrely, about half the US) that still don't believe in evolution.

I also question Leakey's claim that scepticism will be gone. Scepticism will not, and should not, ever be gone. 'Scepticism' doesn't mean you don't believe it, it means you only believe with hard evidence - which we have.

 

[mkatzwork]

1000% correct - the debate is done in the scientific community, anything said to the contrary is simply, demonstrably, a lie.

It's interesting to see how the debate in this kind of sphere will probably dissipate into nothing - likely the best model for that dissipation occurred in the 20th Century. The debate over tectonophysics was resolved by evidence, and the evidence is mounting rapidly for evolution (from an already unassailable point).

 

[BobRyan]

The only debate about whether evolution takes place or not is among those who do engage in critical thinking and know the difference between junk science and not know anything about it. We don't need more evidence to end that debate, we need to educate people who know the difference between junk-science blind-faith-evolutionism and actual observations in nature.

Hint -- an amoeba is never going to turn into a horse. No -- not ever.

Thankfully there are atheist evolutionist scientists like Colin Patterson willing to admit to the distinctly religious nature of the argument for evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[RickG]

The only debate about whether evolution takes place or not is among those who do engage in critical thinking and know the difference between junk science and not know anything about it. We don't need more evidence to end that debate, we need to educate people who know the difference between junk-science blind-faith-evolutionism and actual observations in nature.

I completely agree. Just curious, what field of specialty is your experise?

Hint -- an amoeba is never going to turn into a horse. No -- not ever.
[/quote]

I'm in 100% agreement with that. Anyone to think such a thing could happen is utterly "stupid".

 

[mkatzwork]

Hint -- an amoeba is never going to turn into a horse. No -- not ever.


Bob

How much straw do you have in your argumental barn?

 

[Elendur]

The only debate about whether evolution takes place or not is among those who do engage in critical thinking and know the difference between junk science and not know anything about it. We don't need more evidence to end that debate, we need to educate people who know the difference between junk-science blind-faith-evolutionism and actual observations in nature.

Hint -- an amoeba is never going to turn into a horse. No -- not ever.

Thankfully there are atheist evolutionist scientists like Colin Patterson willing to admit to the distinctly religious nature of the argument for evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob

ToE doesn't say that, and never have, most likely never will as well. You are misinformed of the theory if you think it says that.

 

[BobRyan]

I completely agree. Just curious, what field of specialty is your experise?

Hint -- an amoeba is never going to turn into a horse. No -- not ever.

I'm in 100% agreement with that. Anyone to think such a thing could happen is utterly "stupid".[/quote]

I am glad to see at least one evolutionist willing to listen to reason.

How is it that you are so open to objective fact?

(or is this the part where you inform us that a eukaryote single-celled animal like an amoeba is NOT the "simple" genome example from which more complex life forms evolved?)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan The only debate about whether evolution takes place or not is among those who do engage in critical thinking and know the difference between junk science and not know anything about it. We don't need more evidence to end that debate, we need to educate people who know the difference between junk-science blind-faith-evolutionism and actual observations in nature.

Hint -- an amoeba is never going to turn into a horse. No -- not ever.

Thankfully there are atheist evolutionist scientists like Colin Patterson willing to admit to the distinctly religious nature of the argument for evolutionism.

ToE doesn't say that,

Ok - so then horses come from MORE complex genomes not LESS??

Do tell!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Elendur]

Ok - so then horses come from MORE complex genomes not LESS??

Do tell!

in Christ,

Bob

Now you've completely changed your message.
I don't see anything about genomes in this:
"an amoeba is never going to turn into a horse"

Also, please define more complex genome. Is it a genome that is longer? Or a genome that somehow makes more complex functions available? Or a genome that has the same characteristics as another, only shorter?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ok - so then horses come from MORE complex genomes not LESS??

Do tell!

The complexity of the genome is roughly correlated with the age of the species. We have 46 chromosomes, ferns have over a thousand. The complexity of the genome of the ancestor of the horse is irrelevant - it could be higher, it could be lower. This list might help.

 

[mkatzwork]

Ok - so then horses come from MORE complex genomes not LESS??
Do tell!

Yes yes yes!!! He's waiting to go all thermodynamic on your butt. Don't disappoint him!