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

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yep yadda maybe nadda

Uh-huh. Well that just dismantled the scientific establishment right there *eye roll*

 

[We Never Know]

Uh-huh. Well that just dismantled the scientific establishment right there *eye roll*

And your *eye roll* just built them right back up.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

And your *eye roll* just built them right back up.

If you want a discussion about science, I'm happy to have one with you. If you want to ask silly questions and deliberately misunderstand simple concepts to make some imaginary point, I'm really not interested.

 

[We Never Know]

If you want a discussion about science, I'm happy to have one with you. If you want to ask silly questions and deliberately misunderstand simple concepts to make some imaginary point, I'm really not interested.

Sure. What would you like to discuss?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I demand you give me an example of a thing that meets these criteria, yet I will not define specifically what counts as meeting the criteria. I do this so that no matter what you present, I can say that your examples do not support the criteria I asked for!

The e criteria asked for were met. At least the reasonable ones. Perhaps we need to break it down. Let's go over the idea of "new information" first.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that organic molecules could have been formed from some of the inorganic components and natural energy sources thought to have existed on primordial Earth.

Urey proved that mud can have a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what is required for abiogenesis, ignoring issues of thermodynamics, chirality, complexity...

 

[BilliardsBall]

Ach. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

Why do you guys make always the same mistake? Evolution explains life complexity, UNDER THE ASSUMPTION OF A SIMPLE BEGINNING, which is unexplained.

It is like studying stars evolution without caring of where the gallactic gas comes from.

Should not be so difficult to understand. Especially to guys who believe to be in the image (intellectual, not apelike) of God.

Ciao

- viole

My God set laws in place that macroevolution seems to defy, including chirality, thermodynamics and entropy, etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Billiards.

1000 scientists are 3 scientists every 10,000 ones.

Are yoy guys so desperate to see that as a possible change of consensus? What shouil we say then about the major disagreements you have within your doctrine? Young earth, old earth. Eternal torment, separation from god. New trib, old trib, whatever that means. Etc. etc.

If you believe science is doubting evolution, then I would say we are entitled to believe that Christianity is in complete chaotic disarray, if we compare the %.

Let makes a bet. Jesus will come back before science and reason will abandon evolution.

Deal?

Ciao

- viole

Please restate what you mean here. I'm having trouble following what you are asking.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Abiogenesis is nothing to do with evolution BUT it is the best explanation for how life began.
If you asked me to bet my mortgage on it being true, I wouldn't take the bet.
However, if you asked me for a better explanation, I don't have one, so until a better explanation comes along, it is abiogenesis for me.

(BTW, if you asked me to bet my mortgage on evolution being true, I would do)

What are you betting your life on? (Purpose, meaning)
What are you betting your death on? (Purpose, judgment)
What are you betting your mind on? (Indoctrination, exploration)
What are you betting your lifestyle on? (Self-control, advancement)

 

[ratiocinator]

My God set laws in place that macroevolution seems to defy, including chirality, thermodynamics and entropy, etc.

There is no evidence that any god had anything to do with the laws and evolution (macro or otherwise) does not defy them.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your reading comprehension leaves a bit to be desired, and I'm not about to bother bringing you up to speed.

Have a good day.

.​

No, I'm sure you accused 1,000 scientists of dishonesty, if so, that means we can't trust science, and need to trust the Bible still more. Good luck!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What are you betting your life on? (Purpose, meaning)
What are you betting your death on? (Purpose, judgment)
What are you betting your mind on? (Indoctrination, exploration)
What are you betting your lifestyle on? (Self-control, advancement)

How are the bets you're placing in any of those area any different?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, I'm sure you accused 1,000 scientists of dishonesty, if so, that means we can't trust science, and need to trust the Bible still more. Good luck!

Dishonesty only undermines your arguments, BB. Skwim never accused 1,000 scientists of dishonesty - that's a complete fabrication.

 

[viole]

My God set laws in place that macroevolution seems to defy, including chirality, thermodynamics and entropy, etc.

Oh no. Thermodynamics. Tell me why on earth thermodynamics and entropy would make evolution impossible. I thougt that even Answers in Genesis recommends not to use that anymore, but it is possible that I overrate them.

So, what is more likely: that a bunch of creationists without a scientific clue whatsoever do not know what they talk about, or that the whole scientific community in the last 150 years missed something so obvious?

If you believe the latter, then well, you can probably believe anything.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Please restate what you mean here. I'm having trouble following what you are asking.

It is not difficult: creationists are all revved up because 3 scientists every 10,000 doubt evolution. They delude themselves that something so marginal might indicate the beginning of a rebellion that will eventually overthrow evolution.

But if we count how many Christians accept evolution vs. Christians who do not, then we have much higher percentages. Probably the majority of Christians has no problem with evolution.

So, what should we think? If 0.03% is a rebellion, what is > 50%?

I recommend that you guys clear that out during those personal relationships with the Almighty, that you all claim to have, so that we have at least consensus from your side.

Ciao

- viole

 

[tas8831]

Urey proved that mud can have a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what is required for abiogenesis, ignoring issues of thermodynamics, chirality, complexity...

How did Jehovah overcome thermodynamics and chirality?

Evidence please.

 

[tas8831]

My God set laws in place that macroevolution seems to defy, including chirality, thermodynamics and entropy, etc.

Never any evidence, though. Weird.

 

[Prestor John]

Please, you phrased your claim in such a way that it was a clear attack. Or did you forget your nickname for him

You mean "Bill Nye The-Not-So-Science-Guy"?

He is not a scientist. He is not an authority in the scientific community as he often acts like.

You need to learn how to use LOL properly.

But I literally "laughed out loud" at your claim that I was somehow denigrating creationists by pointing out that Bill Nye is not a scientist.

It was funny.

 

[Prestor John]

It depends. Does that person follow the scientific method? If he does he could be said to be a scientist.

Nope.

An elementary school kid and a baking soda volcano are not scientists.

Neither is Bill Nye.

Creationists on the other hand that work at various creationist sites have to swear not to use the scientific method.

I wouldn't know anything about that.

Wait...was that an "attack" just now?

BY attacking creationists you are denigrating all scientists.

L-O-L

 

[Prestor John]

I'd say that it does not, in and of itself, make one a scientist, but the Discovery Institute seems to think that engineers and psychologists, and dentists are.

Weird. I don't know anything about the Discovery Institute.