The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

[Loudmouth]

Exactly. Also, I think many people fail to realize or admit that much of mainstream science is highly biased and even dishonest. (Some outright scams and forgeries have even been discovered over the years)

How can you accuse scientists of being biased when creationists openly state that no evidence will convince them.

The bottom line is, there is more money than we care to know (or even can know) wrapped up in current scientific "research." Mainstream, evolutionary science has a very definitive agenda. They have decided on the model of Darwinian evolution, and they are running with it at all costs, no matter the conflicting evidence. Big name publications, television networks and companies, well known and highly accredited institutions and educational facilities etc., they've all bought into the Theory of Evolution. They, quite literally, cannot afford to admit to any real problems with it now, which is why they will do everything they can to cover up any issues and put a convincing spin on their "findings."

Backing them up is continued "research." But who exactly is receiving the research grants, and who continues to fund this ongoing research and experimentation? That's right, those who have already bought into the idea of Darwinian evolution. Any scientist who disagrees is considered a "fringe scientist", and they do not receive any sort of mainstream acknowledgement or funding. They are discredited and tossed aside the very second they even dare to mention the possibility that Darwinian evolutionary theory has some major flaws and shortcomings. Now, is that honest science? Hardly.

Frankly, I don't trust all of these organizations. They are wealthy beyond imagination, they are politically powerful and they have every reason to lie. They are a huge part of an ongoing narrative that has, at its centre, the goal of removing God from every single facet of life and existence. But they will not win.

"Liar, Liar, pants on fire" is not a valid counterargument to the scientific evidence that has been presented.

 

[amariselle]

How can you accuse scientists of being biased when creationists openly state that no evidence will convince them.

"Liar, Liar, pants on fire" is not a valid counterargument to the scientific evidence that has been presented.

You haven't actually addressed what I said all.

 

[Loudmouth]

You haven't actually addressed what I said all.

You are saying that scientists are lying so that they can get money. I would hazard a guess that you won't back up this accusation at all, will you?

Are you also forgetting that there are hundreds of thousands of Christian biologists who accept evolution. Are you saying they are in on the conspiracy as well? Evolution no more removes God than the theory of gravity or germ theory. All it does is disagree with creationists, who are not gods by the way.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Exactly. Also, I think many people fail to realize or admit that much of mainstream science is highly biased and even dishonest. (Some outright scams and forgeries have even been discovered over the years)

By scientists, doing science.

The bottom line is, there is more money than we care to know (or even can know) wrapped up in current scientific "research."

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to obtain funding?

Mainstream, evolutionary science has a very definitive agenda. They have decided on the model of Darwinian evolution, and they are running with it at all costs, no matter the conflicting evidence. Big name publications, television networks and companies, well known and highly accredited institutions and educational facilities etc., they've all bought into the Theory of Evolution. They, quite literally, cannot afford to admit to any real problems with it now, which is why they will do everything they can to cover up any issues and put a convincing spin on their "findings."

You are talking about creationism here. Having built a "life size" ark amusement park, and basically declaring that nothing can ever change his mind, Ken Ham won't allow himself to reconsider the merits of creationism (or there lack of).

Backing them up is continued "research." But who exactly is receiving the research grants, and who continues to fund this ongoing research and experimentation? That's right, those who have already bought into the idea of Darwinian evolution. Any scientist who disagrees is considered a "fringe scientist", and they do not receive any sort of mainstream acknowledgement or funding. They are discredited and tossed aside the very second they even dare to mention the possibility that Darwinian evolutionary theory has some major flaws and shortcomings. Now, is that honest science? Hardly.

Maybe we should start funding other quacks too?

Frankly, I don't trust all of these organizations. They are wealthy beyond imagination, they are politically powerful and they have every reason to lie.

LOL. But you trust creationist organisations that openly state that nothing could ever make them reconsider their theological commitments? They have no reason to lie?

 

[amariselle]

You are saying that scientists are lying so that they can get money. I would hazard a guess that you won't back up this accusation at all, will you?

Are you also forgetting that there are hundreds of thousands of Christian biologists who accept evolution. Are you saying they are in on the conspiracy as well? Evolution no more removes God than the theory of gravity or germ theory. All it does is disagree with creationists, who are not gods by the way.

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are entirely different things. No Christian agrees that we are the result of continual evolution from single celled organism to man, and that everything else on this earth likewise came from a single cell.

And if you think there isn't billions, if not trillions, of dollars tied up in Darwinian evolution, you're sadly mistaken. The most powerful and wealthy institutions have already bought into this theory, they do not fund research that may dispute it. They also have enough money and power to make any contradictory evidence that does come up conveniently "go away."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are entirely different things. No Christian agrees that we are the result of continual evolution from single celled organism to man, and that everything else on this earth likewise came from a single cell.

And if you think there isn't billions, if not trillions, of dollars tied up in Darwinian evolution, you're sadly mistaken. The most powerful and wealthy institutions have already bought into this theory, they do not fund research that may dispute it. They also have enough money and power to make any contradictory evidence that does come up conveniently "go away."

Yes, those filthy rich scientists. I hear that PhD students and post docs rival CEOs in terms of wealth.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Are you also forgetting that there are hundreds of thousands of Christian biologists who accept evolution. Are you saying they are in on the conspiracy as well?

She is aware of them, having once provided a list of Christian scientists that happens to include:

In reference of the list you provided earlier, @amariselle, on closer inspection it includes Ronald Fisher, an evolutionary biologist; Georges Lemaître, who first proposed the Big Bang theory; and Theodosius Dobzhansky, who wrote the essay "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."

 

[Loudmouth]

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are entirely different things.

Entirely different? Prove it.

No Christian agrees that we are the result of continual evolution from single celled organism to man, and that everything else on this earth likewise came from a single cell.

If I find a Christian who says otherwise, will you admit that you are wrong?

And if you think there isn't billions, if not trillions, of dollars tied up in Darwinian evolution, you're sadly mistaken.

There are trillions of dollars tied up in the germ theory of disease. Does that mean that germs are a lie?

The most powerful and wealthy institutions have already bought into this theory, they do not fund research that may dispute it.

They also don't fund research that hypothesized that diseases are caused by evil ghosts. Does that mean germ theory is a lie?

Also, what are the experiments that creationists want to do that requires money? What research grants have they submitted? On top of that, why can't they get funding from Christian universities to do this research?

They also have enough money and power to make any contradictory evidence that does come up conveniently "go away."

They also have the money and power to make any contradictory evidence against germ theory "go away". Does that make germ theory a lie?

 

[amariselle]

By scientists, doing science.

Yep, just like the frauds and forgeries were produced by other scientists doing science, what's your point? Do you honestly think all scientists are honest?

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to obtain funding?

Nearly impossible for a creationist or any other scientist who would like to question Darwinian evolution I would imagine.

You are talking about creationism here. Having built a "life size" ark amusement park, and basically declaring that nothing can ever change his mind, Ken Ham won't allow himself to reconsider the merits of creationism (or there lack of).

And what how do you think a single amusement park putting forth Biblical creation compares with all that has been built and structured around Darwinian evolution? National Geographic, the Smithsonian, countless "Natural History Museums", textbooks, mainstream highly accredited educational institutions, television networks, magazines and other publications. How willing do you think the people behind all of these companies and organizations are to "change their minds?"

Maybe we should start funding other quacks too?

Exactly, you prove my point. The only people who will get adequate and substantial funding and recognition, are those that bow to the claims of Darwinian evolution. All others are simply "quacks."

LOL. But you trust creationist organisations that openly state that nothing could ever make them reconsider their theological commitments? They have no reason to lie?

Hmm....did you see me reference any "creationist organization" in particular? You are making entirely unfounded and dishonest claims. I didn't say who I trust, I said I don't trust mainstream science and research.

 

[amariselle]

She is aware of them, having once provided a list of Christian scientists that happens to include:

Ha ha....I provided a list in response to an entirely different topic. There you go attempting to derail threads again.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yep, just like the frauds and forgeries were produced by other scientists doing science, what's your point? Do you honestly think all scientists are honest?

Which of these transitional hominid fossils is a forgery?

Nearly impossible for a creationist or any other scientist who would like to question Darwinian evolution I would imagine.

You aren't questioning anything. You are just calling people liars.

Why don't you address the science in the first few posts and show how it is wrong. Or is the "Liar, Liar, pants on fire" the only argument you have?

 

[amariselle]

Entirely different? Prove it.

Look it up yourself, the information is out there for everyone who is actually interested.

If I find a Christian who says otherwise, will you admit that you are wrong?[/QUOTE]

How can they be a Christian if they don't believe God created us? That's kind of important.

There are trillions of dollars tied up in the germ theory of disease. Does that mean that germs are a lie?

I don't doubt that there have been lies told in this regard either. When people are motivated by money and power, they are quite likely to lie.

They also don't fund research that hypothesized that diseases are caused by evil ghosts. Does that mean germ theory is a lie?

Not the same thing. They don't want to look at evidence for creation, which is actually visible, ghosts are not.

Also, what are the experiments that creationists want to do that requires money? What research grants have they submitted? On top of that, why can't they get funding from Christian universities to do this research?

Why shouldn't they be able to get grants from the same institutions as other scientists? Why must they be segregated. As I said, creationists are simply dismissed as "fringe scientists." Mainstream scientists and researchers will not take them seriously.

They also have the money and power to make any contradictory evidence against germ theory "go away". Does that make germ theory a lie?

They make all kinds of things go away all the time. We don't know the half of it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yep, just like the frauds and forgeries were produced by other scientists doing science, what's your point? Do you honestly think all scientists are honest?

In what way were they "doing science" if they were producing forgeries in an attempt to fool the scientific community?

Nearly impossible for a creationist or any other scientist who would like to question Darwinian evolution I would imagine.

As I've told you before, I've worked on the same grant for a few years now. Despite the excellent reviews we've received, we haven't succeeded in obtaining funding for this particular project. Many good projects likewise fail to attract the funding they need to get off the ground. It isn't simply a matter of asking nicely and getting all the money you want. Your impression is nothing like the actual state of affairs, in which applying for funding is a huge ordeal.

And what how do you think a single amusement park putting forth Biblical creation compares with all that has been built and structured around Darwinian evolution? National Geographic, the Smithsonian, countless "Natural History Museums", textbooks, mainstream highly accredited educational institutions, television networks, magazines and other publications. How willing do you think the people behind all of these companies and organizations are to "change their minds?"

But they do change! Textbooks are updated. The latest textbooks will include the most recent (and most precise) estimate of the universe's age (13.82 billion years) based on the most recent data available. If we discover the ninth planet that certain models hint at, the textbooks will again be updated to reflect this finding. Juno's discoveries at Jupiter will again lead us to update. When was Genesis last updated?

Exactly, you prove my point. The only people who will get adequate and substantial funding and recognition, are those that bow to the claims of Darwinian evolution. All others are simply "quacks."

They don't get funding for the same reason astrologers don't get funding.

Hmm....did you see me reference any "creationist organization" in particular? You are making entirely unfounded and dishonest claims. I didn't say who I trust, I said I don't trust mainstream science and research.

How are you going with my challenge, by the way? Have you found a single reputable scientific journal or organisation that has a "statement of faith" similar to that found on AiG's website?

 

[Loudmouth]

Look it up yourself, the information is out there for everyone who is actually interested.

You look it up. Your claim, your burden of proof.

For example, which of the genetic differences between chimps and humans are you saying could not be produced by a microevolutionary event?

If I find a Christian who says otherwise, will you admit that you are wrong?

Still waiting for an answer to that question.

 

[amariselle]

Which of these transitional hominid fossils is a forgery?

That picture tells me nothing. There is also no adequate evidence that ANY creature transitions from one species to another. The fossil record is far too fragmentary for that.

You aren't questioning anything. You are just calling people liars.

I am indeed questioning everything. I have a right to do so. As for scientists lying, well, they HAVE, intentionally. That is not an unknown or unsupported point, it is a FACT.

Why don't you address the science in the first few posts and show how it is wrong. Or is the "Liar, Liar, pants on fire" the only argument you have?

I've addressed it repeatedly before. And I have every right to question how this "science" came about and what's truly behind it. Or do you think I should just blindly accept it without objection?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why shouldn't they be able to get grants from the same institutions as other scientists? Why must they be segregated. As I said, creationists are simply dismissed as "fringe scientists." Mainstream scientists and researchers will not take them seriously.

Because they deserve to be taken as seriously as astrologers and homeopathic practitioners.

 

[crjmurray]

I'll address it but I assure you it will be short/sweet/ disappointing and unacceptable to many, so don't really see the point.

let me say right off, and as I've said before, I've seen your evidence before and it does not make evolution believable to me. I have already told you why, and what my logic is, so first you tell me, what is the point of this?

If you want to pat yourselves on the back with a "see I told you so, I/we really do have evidence" then do that.
You are going to think that way regardless of what I think, but I don't and never will accept your evidence as reason to believe evolution is a fact. And honestly you just don't have much if anything in the way of proof...just very weak stuff you claim is proof. Wait, that's not right, science proves nothing so, you don't have that much if anything in the way of compelling evidence. The compelling evidence God did it, is much much more viable than your evidence or what you call evidence, and I already explained why for me....end of story.

In my view, for the most part anyway, it's all contrived out of the want to believe no creator exists, in order to let yourselves off the hook with God....that is the root of it all. And what is hilarious to me is all the so-called smart people that are running wild with this, and are 100% positive they have something. If you could step back and see this from the perspective some of us do you'd get it. But you won't allow yourselves to do that, because seeing it would make fools of yourselves. For that reason there is no stopping you now, you/others have obligated yourselves, and instead of admitting the truth that got you into this pickle, you will take it with you to your graves and beyond.

Why are you trying so hard to get me to think as you do? You certainly don't need my blessing for you to believe evolution, so what is the driving force here? God is not going away even if you did convince me.

That sounds like a personal problem.

 

[Loudmouth]

That picture tells me nothing. There is also no adequate evidence that ANY creature transitions from one species to another. The fossil record is far too fragmentary for that.

I asked which of those are forgeries. Answer the question.

We already know that you will reject any and all fossil evidence, no matter what. The very things you accuse scientists of are actually your own position. You try to foist your own flaws onto others as a way of justifying your own dogmatic position.

I am indeed questioning everything.

No, you aren't. You are calling them liars with nothing to back it up.

I've addressed it repeatedly before. And I have every right to question how this "science" came about and what's truly behind it.

You refuse to even discuss the science. "Liar, Liar, pants on fire" is your only response.

For example, what features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps? I bet you can't answer that question, because you will never accept any fossil as being transitional, no matter what it looks like.

 

[amariselle]

You look it up. Your claim, your burden of proof.

Nope, it was YOUR claim that Christians accept evolution. YOU support that. Your burden of proof.

For example, which of the genetic differences between chimps and humans are you saying could not be produced by a microevolutionary event?

Micro-evolution does not involve new genetic information, for macro-evolution to be possible, new genetic information must be somehow added.

Still waiting for an answer to that question.

As I said, no Christian denies that God created man and everything on this earth. So, no, I would not even believe a person who said such things was a Christian.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Nope, it was YOUR claim that Christians accept evolution. YOU support that. Your burden of proof.

I already showed you this in a previous thread, remember?