"1,000 Scientists Sign Up to Dissent from Darwin"

[stvdv]

And that is a POTENTIAL flaw in the system. It's not justification to handwave any scientific information, however. Even the Wakefield claims, blatantly false and moneygrubbing as they were, needed to be empirically disproved, rather than merely handwaved.

Oh you mean that these Christian so called scientists just waved evolution away
I agree, but what they did is so absurd IMO, that I don't even take them serious. There never was a doubt for me about evolution
I can hardly imagine people in 2019 taking these scientists serious, but in 2017 a man studying for priest told me he believed the earth is flat

Should be easy for Science/Government to ONLY allow Scientific correct claims to be made.
"Freedom of Speech" is great, but with it comes "Freedom of Uttering nonsense or non scientific claims".
That is a natural consequence we can't avoid, as not all have IQ of D.T (and even he sometimes utters nonsense)

 

[Faithofchristian]

Evolution ---- the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth"

Evolved --- develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the company has evolved into a major chemical manufacturer"

Meaning of Diversified
verb
past tense: diversified; past participle: diversified

1. make or become more diverse or varied.
   "the trilobites diversified into a great number of species"

As with mankind at the time God created mankind in it's earlier stage and as time pass by, Mankind diversified over a period of time into a great number of intelligent species of mankind which brought about the machine age of technology in the history of the earth.

As with a company in it's earlier stage it was a small company, then as time pass by, Diversified into a great Company

So here we find ( Evolution ) and ( Evolved ) as meaning one and the same thing and Diversified meaning pass tents.


So with this understanding.

We all heard about how God created man from the earth
Now seeing that mankind had no understanding or knowledge at the time God created mankind from the earth about machines.

So mankind over a period of time from the day God created mankind developed and diversified from earlier forms of mankind during the history of the earth into what mankind is to day.
At the time God created mankind had no concept about machines, So it took a gradually period of time to develop for mankind to understanding and knowledge about machines..
So evolution played a big part into developing mankind into the mankind of to day.
So the process of Evolution is
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth"

So the earlier forms of mankind from the day God created mankind develop and diversified from the earlier mankind into what mankind is to day.

Which the earlier mankind had no concept about machines, so it took a gradual period of time thru the process of evolution to evolve mankind to understand with knowledge of machines

So as Evolution would have it ( the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth)

So the process by which mankind evolved and diversified from earlier mankind during the history of the earth into what mankind is to day of the machine age.

So we find mankind evolved to develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form into the machine age.

As a company has evolved into a major chemical manufacturer"

So as with mankind, develop gradually, especially from the mankind at his earlier stage of creation to a more complex mankind of the machine age.

As with a Company from it's earlier stage, has evolved into a major chemical manufacturer.

So as with mankind from it's earlier stage, has evolved by diversified into a major machine age of technology in all the earth history.

 

[Revoltingest]

If Issac Newton ate babies, would that make the theory of gravity harmful/false?

Newton has done even worse than that.
His "Principia Mathematica" is a rape manual.
Ref....
Sandra Harding - Wikipedia
We should note that where Ms Harding taught, Michigan State,
rape was common, committed by staff, & covered up by staff.
How did this happen? Calculus was taught to men.

 

[LuisDantas]

That works both ways.

Does it?

What would you be talking about?

 

[BilliardsBall]

.

And other misleading pronouncements.
by Ken Ham on February 11, 2019

Ken Ham, true to form and not one to pass up an opportunity to mislead the gullible, repeats the old creationist canard that evolution can't explain biological origins. I know that just about every evolutionist here, and even some creationists, recognize the "crime," but I wanted everyone to know that despite being corrected time and again, people are still making the asinine assertion, and by the cream of the creationists no less. It sends the unequivocal message that: "We don't care that we have to lie in order to tear down evolution, as long as it works. We're lying for god!"

​

View attachment 27036
source​

It would be amusing if it wasn't so harmful.

​

Yet they "still believe evolution" in a different form, as above. Do you likewise assault the integrity of 1,000 physicists who believe in string theory (or disbelieve it)? Or 1,000 historians who go with later (or earlier) dates for Amenhotep's reign?

BE CONSISTENT. Be kind!

 

[LuisDantas]

Yet they "still believe evolution" in a different form, as above. Do you likewise assault the integrity of 1,000 physicists who believe in string theory (or disbelieve it)? Or 1,000 historians who go with later (or earlier) dates for Amenhotep's reign?

BE CONSISTENT. Be kind!

Science is not about "believing". The whole point is to have no need to rely on beliefs.

 

[viole]

.

And other misleading pronouncements.
by Ken Ham on February 11, 2019

Ken Ham, true to form and not one to pass up an opportunity to mislead the gullible, repeats the old creationist canard that evolution can't explain biological origins. I know that just about every evolutionist here, and even some creationists, recognize the "crime," but I wanted everyone to know that despite being corrected time and again, people are still making the asinine assertion, and by the cream of the creationists no less. It sends the unequivocal message that: "We don't care that we have to lie in order to tear down evolution, as long as it works. We're lying for god!"

​

View attachment 27036
source​

It would be amusing if it wasn't so harmful.

​

Even if true, that is about 0.03% of the scientific population. So, not even worthy to spend time scrutinizing that.

Imagine, a place with 10,000 scientists and only 3 raise their hands when asked who doubts evolution. A real rebellion, lol. Probably not far from the % of flat earthers.

Now, take 10,000 Christians and ask who believes the earth is 6,000 years old.

And compare.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

Yet they "still believe evolution" in a different form, as above. Do you likewise assault the integrity of 1,000 physicists who believe in string theory (or disbelieve it)? Or 1,000 historians who go with later (or earlier) dates for Amenhotep's reign?

BE CONSISTENT. Be kind!

Sorry, but I haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

.

 

[viole]

Yet they "still believe evolution" in a different form, as above. Do you likewise assault the integrity of 1,000 physicists who believe in string theory (or disbelieve it)? Or 1,000 historians who go with later (or earlier) dates for Amenhotep's reign?

BE CONSISTENT. Be kind!

Nobody believes evolution.

The creationist does not believe it, by giving priority to ancient books written by goat herders. Or some other ancient so called sacred book.

The others do not beileve it, either. They know it is true.

Ciao

- viole

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But it needs to be funded, so it is dependent on the rich guys

Rich guys like to be and stay rich. More even, they like to become even richer.
So they prefer their money to be invested in quality research which will give them a return on their investment.

It's the same reason why rich republican YECs involved in oil companies, happily hire scientists who depend on a model that includes a 4.5 billion year old earth, to tell them where to drill.

, and they will dictate how their money is used to some degree.

No. Rich guys don't throw money at scientists while telling them what to do.
Instead, it's the science guys with research plans that go to the rich guys to pitch their plans hoping to get money to proceed.

And as said, the rich guys prefer to invest in things that will yield returns instead of conspiratory nonsense that doesn't go anywhere.

Again, to the point where YECs will happily hire mainstream scientists to tell them where to drill for more black gold.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution ---- the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth"

Evolved --- develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the company has evolved into a major chemical manufacturer"

Meaning of Diversified
verb
past tense: diversified; past participle: diversified

1. make or become more diverse or varied.
   "the trilobites diversified into a great number of species"

As with mankind at the time God created mankind in it's earlier stage and as time pass by, Mankind diversified over a period of time into a great number of intelligent species of mankind which brought about the machine age of technology in the history of the earth.

As with a company in it's earlier stage it was a small company, then as time pass by, Diversified into a great Company

So here we find ( Evolution ) and ( Evolved ) as meaning one and the same thing and Diversified meaning pass tents.


So with this understanding.

We all heard about how God created man from the earth
Now seeing that mankind had no understanding or knowledge at the time God created mankind from the earth about machines.

So mankind over a period of time from the day God created mankind developed and diversified from earlier forms of mankind during the history of the earth into what mankind is to day.
At the time God created mankind had no concept about machines, So it took a gradually period of time to develop for mankind to understanding and knowledge about machines..
So evolution played a big part into developing mankind into the mankind of to day.
So the process of Evolution is
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth"

So the earlier forms of mankind from the day God created mankind develop and diversified from the earlier mankind into what mankind is to day.

Which the earlier mankind had no concept about machines, so it took a gradual period of time thru the process of evolution to evolve mankind to understand with knowledge of machines

So as Evolution would have it ( the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth)

So the process by which mankind evolved and diversified from earlier mankind during the history of the earth into what mankind is to day of the machine age.

So we find mankind evolved to develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form into the machine age.

As a company has evolved into a major chemical manufacturer"

So as with mankind, develop gradually, especially from the mankind at his earlier stage of creation to a more complex mankind of the machine age.

As with a Company from it's earlier stage, has evolved into a major chemical manufacturer.

So as with mankind from it's earlier stage, has evolved by diversified into a major machine age of technology in all the earth history.

Homo sapiens from 100.000 years ago is not "less complex" then a homo sapiens today.
If you could travel back in time and kidnap a baby to the 21st century and raise it there, you'ld barely notice any difference - assuming you'ld notice anything at all.

Homo sapiens evolved from other primates.

Get over it.

 

[Deeje]

Does it?

What would you be talking about?

The OP stated...."It would be amusing if it wasn't so harmful."

I don't worship science or see it as something terribly beneficial in the world due to its despicable application in many areas. It has many beneficial applications as well, but I see its benefits far outweighed by its detriment in today's world especially.

We have science to thank for nuclear weapons.....chemical weapons.....chemical poisons used in agriculture that get into the food chain and pollute the waterways.....dangerous and addictive substances marketed under the guise of medical science.....uses for petro-chemicals in manufacturing plastics that are choking this planet. So when people start spouting on about how wonderful science is, I temper that will its appalling applications in a very evil world, getting worse by the day IMO.

Science is not about "believing". The whole point is to have no need to rely on beliefs.

Science "believes" more than anyone can imagine. Whatever can't be "proven" has to be "believed". That's a fact. It's up to scientists to "interpret" evidence and everyone must believe what they say or they are accused of being either unintelligent or uneducated. The more educated and intelligent they are, in many cases, the more pompous and arrogant they become.

I call them on their so called "evidence" and say they have as much of a "belief system" as do those who believe in Intelligent Design. I wonder why they get so wounded? It's the truth.

People are as indoctrinated about science's theories as they believe others are about religion....so science is very much about "believing". They are just better at marketing and peer pressure.

 

[SomeRandom]

Hence my remark "What is truly upsetting, is that freedom of press allows to call these scientists")

That’s actually a good point.
My understanding is most of the people involved have engineering degrees? Meaning the term scientist is inaccurate, since Engineering is part of STEM not science specifically. In most countries the title would land them in hot water for misleading the public. America not so much, due to their obsession with “free speech.”
I’m all for free speech, but in journalism there should be boundaries, otherwise it’s just straight up lies.
Also isn’t this bearing false witness on the part of Mr Ham? I don’t think Jesus would be impressed, just saying.

 

[LuisDantas]

The OP stated...."It would be amusing if it wasn't so harmful."

I don't worship science or see it as something terribly beneficial in the world due to its despicable application in many areas. It has many beneficial applications as well, but I see its benefits far outweighed by its detriment in today's world especially.

We have science to thank for nuclear weapons.....chemical weapons.....chemical poisons used in agriculture that get into the food chain and pollute the waterways.....dangerous and addictive substances marketed under the guise of medical science.....uses for petro-chemicals in manufacturing plastics that are choking this planet. So when people start spouting on about how wonderful science is, I temper that will its appalling applications in a very evil world, getting worse by the day IMO.



Science "believes" more than anyone can imagine. Whatever can't be "proven" has to be "believed". That's a fact. It's up to scientists to "interpret" evidence and everyone must believe what they say or they are accused of being either unintelligent or uneducated. The more educated and intelligent they are, in many cases, the more pompous and arrogant they become.

I call them on their so called "evidence" and say they have as much of a "belief system" as do those who believe in Intelligent Design. I wonder why they get so wounded? It's the truth.

People are as indoctrinated about science's theories as they believe others are about religion....so science is very much about "believing". They are just better at marketing and peer pressure.

Well, I see that we are not talking about the same world.

Worth a try, I suppose.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Homo sapiens from 100.000 years ago is not "less complex" then a homo sapiens today.
If you could travel back in time and kidnap a baby to the 21st century and raise it there, you'ld barely notice any difference - assuming you'ld notice anything at all.

Homo sapiens evolved from other primates.

Get over it.

Ok. let's for say a person traveled back to some million or billion years ago, what time period of the Earth's history would that be in.

And how exactly would the earth look like and what animals would that person expect to find. And how much water would be on the earth.
And what would man be like

 

[stvdv]

I’m all for free speech, but in journalism there should be boundaries, otherwise it’s just straight up lies.
Also isn’t this bearing false witness on the part of Mr Ham? I don’t think Jesus would be impressed, just saying.

I agree with all

 

[Prestor John]

Not if you go by the list Ham submitted.

Carefully note that some, like M.M Nian (on page one) don't list any degree in science at all, but in this case is listed as a "former president." And on page three we have James Robert Dickens who has a PhD in mechanical engineering. Engineering is not a science. Then there's John Bordelon on page 3 who has his PhD in Electrical Engineering. Again,Engineering is not a science.



But just as important, please note the wording they all signed.

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the
evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
This was last publicly updated February2019. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position
​

First of all Darwinism, the precursor to what has become evolutionary theory, is not itself evolutionary theory. Yet this is one of the ways creationists often choose to denigrate evolution; attacking evolution on the basis of a lot of Darwinian ideas that have since been found to be incorrect. Not a game changer here because I'm pretty certain that most of the signers regard "Darwinism" as simply another innocuous term for "evolution." However, Ham's use of "Darwinism" does point up his continued childish smirking at his opponent.

Second, note that the statement doesn't say "We deny the claims . . . . " but merely say "We are skeptical of claims. . . ." Being skeptical of A is far different than denying A. I, someone who hasn't immersed himself in the science of cosmology, might very well be skeptical of some of its claims, but I certainly wouldn't deny them; denial being Ham's position on the truth of evolution. But note that he doesn't ask these scientists to agree with his denial, he just wants to give the impression they do.

Third, to allay any hesitancy on the part of those he asked to sign, Ham presents a false impression the he welcomes a "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory." He wants no such thing. What he does want is to appear fair and impartial, one of the standards of scientific investigation. It's one of those, "See guys, I just like one of you."

Fourth, One thousand "scientists" doesn't come close to the millions of scientists who support evolution. See Project Steve where as of January 8, 2019, 1,435 scientists just named "Steve", or variations on the name, agree that

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. . . . ."​

Fifth, and most important of all, none of them agreed that creationism is valid. Ham's raison d'etre.

.

.

​

I don't know this Ham guy from Adam, but your OP left me at a bit of a cliff hanger. I needed to know if there was a list!

I'm glad you recognize that these engineers aren't scientists and we would therefore agree that Bill Nye is a Not-So-Science-Guy, considering that all he has is a mechanical engineering degree as well.

Good post.

 

[Skwim]

I don't know this Ham guy from Adam, but your OP left me at a bit of a cliff hanger. I needed to know if there was a list!

In my post (#30) check out "Not if you go by the list Ham submitted." Clicking on it will bring up the list.

I'm glad you recognize that these engineers aren't scientists and we would therefore agree that Bill Nye is a Not-So-Science-Guy, considering that all he has is a mechanical engineering degree as well.

Wasn't aware of this. But you're right, he doesn't qualify as a scientist.

Good post.

Thank you.


.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

.

And other misleading pronouncements.
by Ken Ham on February 11, 2019

Ken Ham, true to form and not one to pass up an opportunity to mislead the gullible, repeats the old creationist canard that evolution can't explain biological origins. I know that just about every evolutionist here, and even some creationists, recognize the "crime," but I wanted everyone to know that despite being corrected time and again, people are still making the asinine assertion, and by the cream of the creationists no less. It sends the unequivocal message that: "We don't care that we have to lie in order to tear down evolution, as long as it works. We're lying for god!"

​

View attachment 27036
source​

It would be amusing if it wasn't so harmful.

​

I have a quirk that pops into my mind whenever I hear the name Ken Ham. I think 'canned ham'. Then I feel sad and disappointed with myself, because that is so insulting to canned ham.

 

[SomeRandom]

I don't know this Ham guy from Adam, but your OP left me at a bit of a cliff hanger. I needed to know if there was a list!

I'm glad you recognize that these engineers aren't scientists and we would therefore agree that Bill Nye is a Not-So-Science-Guy, considering that all he has is a mechanical engineering degree as well.

Good post.

Bill Nye is a character. Not sure why either side adopts him as some sort of authority figure to poke at. Inspirational for youngsters, sure. Buddies with scientists, okay. But an expert to bring on and discuss or debate legitimate science with? The rest of the world scratches their heads in befuddled awe when such things occur.
I much prefer De Grasse Tyson. He’s an actual scientist and a meme goldmine. Best of both worlds.