The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

[USincognito]

I told you why I came here.

That's nice. Your purpose is at odds with the reason for the post however. Of course this is more meta debate instead of actually addressing the evidence for evolution.

But good job trying to discredit someone's faith by starting a thread just to single them out personally.

Please stop lying about me.

I think you failed by the way, you didn't convince him that you're right and he's wrong, like it seems you were hoping you would.

What is it with Creationists and thinking they have psychic powers? Kenny obviously cannot address any of the evidence for evolution on the first page, or he would have done so. Are you able to? Or will you just keep with the meta debate and libel?

 

[Jimmy D]

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)

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.

I can't believe that people actually think that 100s of thousands of scientists (just normal people from every walk of life and religion) have been involved over the last 150 years in some sort of huge conspiracy with the purpose of "removing god from every single facet of life". Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

The theory of evolution arose from observations of the natural world over 150 years ago and since then scientific advances have only strengthened it and further explained it's mechanisms.

Does it occur to you that the reason "they are running with it at all costs" and have "bought into the idea" is because for those people who actually understand it the evidence is overwhelming.

Anyone can get themselves an education in biology and test the evidence for themselves.

This thread was started with the specific intention of examining just a tiny bit of that evidence yet we haven't had one credible response that actually addresses it - just a lot of bickering about 'beliefs','agendas' and personal incredulity.

One more thing, no one is trying to get "God out of the picture", as you have seen many christians accept the theory of evolution as explained by science. I appreciate that there might be the odd, vocal, militant atheist but they do not represent the scientific community.

If you want to deny reality in favour of your particular brand of ideology that's up to you, spare us your generalizations and judgement of those who disagree with you though.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Exactly. Also, I think many people fail to realize or admit that much of mainstream science is highly biased and even dishonest.

Yet, my pc works, planes fly and meds cure.

(Some outright scams and forgeries have even been discovered over the years)

....by science.

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

There is a LOT more money in creationist propaganda.
Which is why folks like Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and the Hovinds are multi-millionairs, while actual scientists who actually do science, are mostly just upper-middle class working folks.

Or do you think that all scientists earn upwards of 10.000 bucks a month?
Think again.

Mainstream, evolutionary science has a very definitive agenda.

Yep. That agenda being "doing good science".

They have decided on the model of Darwinian evolution

Yep. Just like they decided on the model of plate tectonics, germ theory, atomic theory, relativity....

, and they are running with it at all costs, no matter the conflicting evidence

What 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

Yeah, it's a giant conspiracy is what it is is what it is!
Millions upon millions of biologists, teachers, science magazine editors,... they are all in on it!!! They all made a pact with the devil!!!! They all swore a blood oath so that they could "keep on sinning"!!!!

All hail Darwin!


/end-sarcasm

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."

This is funny, concidering your previous claim that it is all about money...
Because how does a scientist win a nobel prize? How does he get to sell lots of books? How does he get asked around the world for lectures?

Answer: not by upholding the status quo, but rather by proving all his peers to be wrong.

So your claims are in conflict.
If it is all about the money and if evolution is indeed incorrect, then a biologist would become rich and famous merely by showing how it's wrong.

 

[amariselle]

I can't believe that people actually thinhis thread was started with the specific intention of examining just a tiny bit of that evidence yet we haven't had one credible response that actually addresses it - just a lot of bickering about 'beliefs','agendas' and personal incredulity.

This thread was started to single out one member of the forum in order to criticize his rejection of Darwinian evolution and why he rejects it.

 

[Jimmy D]

This thread was started to single out one member of the forum in order to criticize his rejection of Darwinian evolution and why he rejects it.

Because that member demanded evidence should be presented and then avoided it by changing the subject and denying it had been presented. The OP is very matter of fact and criticizes or ridicules no one.

I don't think anyone is surprised by the way this thread has played out, rather than address specific evidence the Creationist would rather obfuscate, change the subject and express a vague incredulity.

 

[amariselle]

Because that member demanded evidence should be presented and then avoided it by changing the subject and denying it had been presented. The OP is very matter of fact and criticizes or ridicules no one.

I don't think anyone is surprised by the way this thread has played out, rather than address specific evidence the Creationist would rather obfuscate, change the subject and express a vague incredulity.

That could have taken place through PM rather than starting a public thread to criticize someone else.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This excellent piece by Rhiannon Morris and Chris Wallis addresses your misconception about evolution being random:

Random mutation is an important non-directional process that produces variation in a population. This is the raw material on which various forces act. These forces are however decidedly not random. Consider selection, this is clearly not a random process. Populations are suited to their niches by adaptation and selection not by chance. Although favourable traits may have occurred by random mutation, selection of said traits is non-random. It is also important to note that his does not mean that evolution has goals, which we tackle below.

 

[Jimmy D]

That could have taken place through PM rather than starting a public thread to criticize someone else.

 

[Astrophile]

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?

Because a lot of people who think as you do are trying to get your beliefs taught in schools as science, rather than as a particular interpretation of the Bible. If you would take creationism out of schools and keep it in the minority of churches that believe it and teach it, most of the force would probably go out of the debate.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That sounds like a personal problem.

If you mean a personal problem with evolution, you are correct....

 

[Kenny'sID]

You mean my thread that I read over before starting to reply? My thread where neither you nor Kenny have addressed the evidence for evolution I posted?

Sorry Your thread didn't get the attention You required when you required it but no no one knew it was there.

No need to go paranoid on us with delusions you are being ignored, either be patient next time of give someone a heads up...simple

 

[Kenny'sID]

Because a lot of people who think as you do are trying to get your beliefs taught in schools as science, rather than as a particular interpretation of the Bible. If you would take creationism out of schools and keep it in the minority of churches that believe it and teach it, most of the force would probably go out of the debate.

LM*O

Think so huh?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

LM*O

Think so huh?

Yeah, I think he hit the nail on the head. Creationism is a political movement, not a scientific one.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Are they really teaching creationism in Schools?

And no, still not buying that as the reason for all your concerns, not even close.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Are they really teaching creationism in Schools?

And no, still not buying that as the reason for all your concerns, not even close.

What is the reason for our concerns then, in your view?

 

[amariselle]

Yeah, I think he hit the nail on the head. Creationism is a political movement, not a scientific one.

SCIENCE is a political movement, "Creationism" is a religious issue.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

SCIENCE is a political movement,

In what way?

"Creationism" is a religious issue.

Then keep it in your church.

 

[amariselle]

In what way?

Science is used to pass and support laws and public policies every single day.

Then keep it in your church.

I will live as a Christian in ALL areas of my life. You do not have any authority to tell me not to obey Jesus Christ.

 

[Kenny'sID]

What is the reason for our concerns then, in your view?

Again, are they really teaching creationism in Schools?

 

[amariselle]

Again, are they really teaching creationism in Schools?

I think they are aware that creationism is not taught in schools. Darwinian evolution is though.