What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[46AND2]

And among those with relevant credentials (e.g. biologists) the number appears to be well under 1%.

Yes, I've seen that, but got tired of trying to find the source.

 

[Resha Caner]

And among those with relevant credentials (e.g. biologists) the number appears to be well under 1%.

I wouldn't lean too heavily on that statistic. After all, whenever a creationist points to a scientist who doesn't accept evolution, it's typically rejected as an appeal to authority or ad populum fallacy.

Or is that the standard now? Things are true based on how many people accept it?

 

[Jimmy D]

I believe they've given up on the concept because it's been 150 years since the "theory" and it can't be proven scientifically.

What a ridiculous post.

Why do you suppose the 99% of scientists whose work is related to the TOE (Paleontologists, biologists etc) accept common descent? Are they all idiots, dishonest or conspiring some how?

What on Earth makes you think that you know better than people who have devoted their lives studying these areas, that can demonstrate, with empirical evidence, that common descent is a fact?

Has it occurred to you how arrogant and ignorant you statement appears?

 

[Jimmy D]

I wouldn't lean too heavily on that statistic. After all, whenever a creationist points to a scientist who doesn't accept evolution, it's typically rejected as an appeal to authority or ad populum fallacy.

Or is that the standard now? Things are true based on how many people accept it?

No, it isn’t the standard, but it is an appropriate reply to the, too often repeated, foolish creationist claim that “many scientists have rejected the TOE”

 

[GodsGrace101]

Nothing is ever 'proven scientifically'. Even the Theory of Gravity. It just has a strong preponderance of evidence in its favor and no plausible alternative theory.

100% proof is reserved for mathematics. That's not how science works. Einstein was wrong about many things too, and since then scientists have improved on his work.

Yes, I know the above.
What does that have to do with many scientists giving up on Darwin's theory?

Instead respond on WHY you think this is so....
Why don't all scientists believe in his theory like all scientists believe in gravity.

 

[Strathos]

Yes, I know the above.
What does that have to do with many scientists giving up on Darwin's theory?

Instead respond on WHY you think this is so....
Why don't all scientists believe in his theory like all scientists believe in gravity.

I believe the others have covered this in their posts already.

 

[GodsGrace101]

You are mistaken about the evidence for evolution. The theory and evidence is better supported and understood then the theory of relativity.

I suspect you have an flawed concept of what the theory actually predicts.
Can you describe what you mean by "macro evolution"?


Even the simplest life form is very involved.

It's not really relevant to a theory explaining how life changes.

A star only requires hydrogen... but we can't make a star in a lab.


But vague and unclear questions. In addition you don't seem to have made any real effort to seek answers.

The theory of relativity is accepted and more theories have come from that and more undersanding.

Macro evolution: one life form changes and becomes a different life form.
Micro evolution: one life form adapts and uses Darwin's theory to survive and become better.

I know we can't make a star in a lab and no one is trying to.

But scientists ARE TRYING to create life in a lab.
Just 4 chemicals, if I remember correctly,,,and yet it cannot be done..BUT ....PER CHANCE...it just kind of happened!

I don't think so,,,but I'm waiting on the results.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Evolution is the most well supported theory in all of science. It is "proven" beyond any reasonable doubt. The only few RELEVANT scientists who don't accept it, reject it for religious reasons, not scientific.

We are as certain that we shared a common ancestor with chimps, for example, as we are when we show familial relationships between humans through DNA. Yes, it is that strong. In fact, the in-depth comparisons are more comprehensive and robust than a typical paternity test, so in one sense we are MORE sure that we shared a common ancestor with chimps than we would be if you and your father did a DNA test.

The only controversy within the community about the theory is the minor details. Whether it actually happened or not is not disputed, except for the fringe 1% who have religious axes to grind.

Well, actually I'm more interested in the origin of life.
And, no, not every scientist accepts Darwin's theory and not based on religious reasons but on the fact that nothing can be proven regarding macro evolution.

And, really, I don't believe I came from a monkey.
You could believe that if you wish.
I still haven't heard anything about the missing link.

 

[GodsGrace101]

1) The Theory of Evolution has come a long way since Darwin's time. It's no longer "Darwin's Theory".

2) Those who reject the modern Theory of Evolution typically do so because of religious beliefs, not anything to do with science.

I know it's come a long way....
but we still don't know how one animal could change into another animal.

You mean Christian scientists are so dumb that they believe their religion more than their science?

Thank God for atheist scientists then!

 

[pitabread]

I know it's come a long way....
but we still don't know how one animal could change into another animal.

Sure we do. That is what the theory of evolution describes: how populations of organisms change over time.

Now we don't have 100% complete knowledge of how everything works. But we have a pretty good idea of how it does work.

You mean Christian scientists are so dumb that they believe their religion more than their science?

Thank God for atheist scientists then!

I never said "Christian scientists". I said those who reject evolution.

Most scientists (Christian or otherwise) accept the modern theory of evolution.

Those who do reject it all seem to do so for reasons related to religious beliefs, and not anything to do with the science by itself.

 

[Jimmy D]

Instead respond on WHY you think this is so....
Why don't all scientists believe in his theory like all scientists believe in gravity

Which ones and why?

You’re just blowing hot air.

 

[MIDutch]

That is indeed the case, but the ball could be picked up and carried as well as punched with the hand. That's why I say football is a variation of a rugby-like predecessor. Football without the use of hands is a pretty modern variation.

EDIT: The "new" rules also allowed for forward passes (something you can't do in rugby), and banned hacking and holding during tackles.

Really odd then that it was often called football. Guess our sporting ancestors couldn't tell the difference between hands and feet either.

 

[GodsGrace101]

What a ridiculous post.

Why do you suppose the 99% of scientists whose work is related to the TOE (Paleontologists, biologists etc) accept common descent? Are they all idiots, dishonest or conspiring some how?

What on Earth makes you think that you know better than people who have devoted their lives studying these areas, that can demonstrate, with empirical evidence, that common descent is a fact?

Has it occurred to you how arrogant and ignorant you statement appears?

Well, actually I'm not saying this...
other scientists are saying this.

But thanks for the compliments...
you're a fine example of an atheist...
I'm sure others here that call themselves atheist
are proud of you.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Which ones and why?

You’re just blowing hot air.

You're sweet.

 

[pitabread]

I wouldn't lean too heavily on that statistic. After all, whenever a creationist points to a scientist who doesn't accept evolution, it's typically rejected as an appeal to authority or ad populum fallacy.

Or is that the standard now? Things are true based on how many people accept it?

The only time I usually bring this up is directly in response to creationist claims about scientists rejecting evolution. Whereby the actual number of said scientists (particularly those in relevant fields) represents a fringe minority. Which in and of itself is not that remarkable.

I would never use it as an argument by itself in favor of the acceptance of evolution.

 

[MIDutch]

But back to my question:
Why did life begin on earth?

Human Exploration of Space: why, where, what for?
J Vernikos
Hippokratia. 2008 Aug; 12(Suppl 1): 6–9. PMCID: PMC2577404

Who said that it was meant to become life?

Unlike what anti-evolutionists want to think, it wasn't random elements magically coming together and making a 747. Physics and chemistry are NOT random. Atoms coming together to form molecules is not random. Molecules coming together and forming complex organic molecules is not random. Complex organic molecules coming together and forming proteins is not random. Complex organic molecules coming together and forming lipids is not random. Proteins coming together and forming self-replicating proteins is not random. The universe is full of examples of atoms coming together to form molecules, which come together to form complex organic chemicals, which come together to form the components of life.

Maybe it just started out as non-random physics and chemistry that just ended up BEING life.

 

[Speedwell]

I know it's come a long way....
but we still don't know how one animal could change into another animal.

Yes, we do.

You mean Christian scientists are so dumb that they believe their religion more than their science?

Are you defining Christianity as including only those believers who reject evolution?

Thank God for atheist scientists then!

And for Christian scientists who don't take an oath to reject anything which contradicts a literal reading of Genesis regardless of the evidence.

 

[Resha Caner]

The only time I usually bring this up is directly in response to creationist claims about scientists rejecting evolution. Whereby the actual number of said scientists (particularly those in relevant fields) represents a fringe minority. Which in and of itself is not that remarkable.

I would never use it as an argument by itself in favor of the acceptance of evolution.

Just a friendly reminder. Comments on the statistic seemed to be gaining a somewhat exuberant tone.

 

[Speedwell]

Just a friendly reminder. Comments on the statistic seemed to be gaining a somewhat exuberant tone.

Not as exuberant as the creationists who claim that a vast and rapidly growing number of scientists are rejecting evolution. It is fun to point out what hogwash that is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I proposed anything, it wouldn't be to suggest testing God or any claims of what God has done. That is why I've been asking: what do you really want?

The conditions of the request entail 2 things: 1) That the hypothesis be mechanistic in nature, 2) that the phenomena studied be understandable. Those two things, by their very nature, strip the primary motivation Christians have for discussing this topic in a creationist context. The only motivation that is left if those conditions are accepted are things like stroking my ego that I'm right, the satisfaction of proving you wrong, etc. That such is the case should be obvious from the way thousands and thousands of these conversations have proceeded in the past.

That's not an encouraging premise for a sincere conversation. But I will add one more wrinkle.

I am, for the most part, an instrumentalist. Therefore, my approach to science is: If the model is effective, that's fine - use it. I could give you a long list of engineering models that are effective, but which are physically wrong. Therefore, if evolution is effective in producing a new medical cure, etc. - that's fine, use it. That will never address the philosophical or theological issues, however, which require a different intellectual framework. If that's not the point you aim to discuss, then I guess it doesn't matter.

And, for my part, I'm more interested in combating the rampant realism and Platonism in science than I am evolution in and of itself.

- - -

So here we are. In short, I would be interested in investigating the possibility of the rapid emergence of organisms from DNA pools rather than by mutation and inheritance.

But let's also face up to another issue. Evolution is a change in the allele frequency of a population, yes? That's the technical side of it. But on another side, the word "evolution" has become so politically charged as to be untenable IMO. What I am proposing is, I think, testable - falsifiable (though you will likely need much more detail to really understand what I'm saying - more than 25 words). I also think it would be a radical change to current thought in biology. Yet, in the end, if one wanted to be pedantic about it - one could say that what I'm proposing is still evolution.

Limiting the definition of evolution to allele frequency doesn't really get at the essence of what people implicitly mean by the word. I've asked questions about allele frequency before, and people's reaction is, "You're being silly and intentionally difficult." But my point is to show some of the latent meaning not expressed in the definition.

One of those questions would run something like this: I have a population of red roses. I then plant some pink roses in that same garden. The allele frequency has changed. Is that evolution? People roll their eyes, "No, of course not." Ah, but technically it fits the definition ... the short definition. In order to rule out such things, we have to add many, many more words. And what evolution "is" becomes a pedantic exercise in definitions - to a large extent it becomes a power struggle over who controls the word. If this conversation becomes that type of thing ... well ... I'm not interested.

You could have stopped with your first paragraph since that is an admission that you are not going to approach this problem rationally. The OP informed you that without a rational argument you are not going to convince very many people.