An unreasonable debate...

[TheGunShoj]

The Creationist supports their theory by using a piece of Script written a long long time ago. Period. (To the creationists out there, I'm not trying to demean this theory because, who knows, you could ultimately be right).

And this is the problem. The two just aren't compatible. It would make sense for an Evolutionist to debate another scientific theory, but Creationism isn't a scientific theory it is a spiritual theory. And that's the problem.
The Evolutionist asks the Creationist: "Explain [this]" and the Creationist responds: "Well the Bible says this about [this]. And that's the problem! The Evolutionist will never understand the Creationist and vice-versa.

What are your thoughts on this?

Evolution is a theory. It is not a fact (aka Natural Law) until it is proven beyond doubt and it hasn't been. I am not saying it isn't true or anything but I wanted to state that.
.

Creationism is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.

 

[rusra02]

Then there should be no problem with reposting them. Please present a list of biologists who reject evolution.

As mentioned, biologists who reject evolution have been listed elsewhere in this forum.

 

[rusra02]

I noticed you did not list even one....

Rather dishonest way of avoiding your list.

Or perhaps you are afraid of your list being nit picked and it being shown that those on your list are not biologists.?
You know, like the last time you presented a list of "biologists"?

And you accuse me of being disingenuous?

As mentioned, biologists who reject evolution have been listed elsewhere in this forum. Anyone interested can find these.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As mentioned, biologists who reject evolution have been listed elsewhere in this forum.

Where? I have searched for "biologists who reject evolution" and have found no such list. Can you provide a link, or perhaps a new list?

 

[McBell]

oh i'm listening

I meant listening to the actual universe, not what the Watchtower tells you the universe is saying....

 

[rusra02]

Where? I have searched for "biologists who reject evolution" and have found no such list. Can you provide a link, or perhaps a new list?

This is a partial list, based on a 5-10 minute Google search. Strange that evolutionists can't seem to find any biologists who reject evolution.
Dr. Davey Loos -.biochemist in Belgium.
Dr. WOLF-EKKEHARD LÖNNIG
Dr. PAULA KINCHELOE
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Dr. David A. DeWitt
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. D.B. Gower

 

[Agnostic75]

This is a partial list, based on a 5-10 minute Google search. Strange that evolutionists can't seem to find any biologists who reject evolution.

Dr. Davey Loos -.biochemist in Belgium.
Dr. WOLF-EKKEHARD LÖNNIG
Dr. PAULA KINCHELOE
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Dr. David A. DeWitt
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. D.B. Gower

Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation

According to Newsweek in 1987:

"By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."

That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms to be about 0.14%.

That means that 99.86% of U.S. experts accepted evolution. If that many experts accepted creationism, you would definitely brag about that.

Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs.

The evolutionary course of Equidae (wide family including all horses and related animals) is often viewed as a typical example of macroevolution. The earliest known genus, Hyracotherium (now reclassified as a palaeothere), was a herbivore animal resembling a dog that lived in the early Cenozoic. As its habitat transformed into an open arid grassland, selective pressure required that the animal become a fast grazer. Thus elongation of legs and head as well as reduction of toes gradually occurred, producing the only extant genus of Equidae, Equus.

While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".

How much do you know about paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigra?

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design.

On December 20, 2005, [judge] Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory....... ID is not science.......ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research......."

Judge Jones is a Christian, and was appointed by a Republican president.

In another thread, I asked you several times to critique an article on the flagellum, mutation, and irreducible complexity by Dr. Ken Miller at The Flagellum Unspun, but you refused to do so since you know that you do not understand it well enough to adequately critique it.

You said that people should study the evidence for, and against evolution, but you cannot understand the evidence, and surely the majority of creationists cannot understand it, especially many of them who live in third world countries.

You mentioned the movie "Expelled: No intellingence allowed." Wikipedia says:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a 2008 documentary film directed by Nathan Frankowski and hosted by Ben Stein. The film contends that the mainstream science establishment suppresses academics who believe they see evidence of intelligent design in nature and who criticize evidence supporting Darwinian evolution and the modern evolutionary synthesis as a "scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation's laboratories and classrooms." The scientific theory of evolution is portrayed by the film as contributing to fascism, the Holocaust, communism, atheism, and eugenics. The film portrays intelligent design as motivated by science, rather than religion, though it does not give a detailed definition of the phrase or attempt to explain it on a scientific level. Other than briefly addressing issues of irreducible complexity, Expelled examines it as a political issue.

That is utter nonsense since Charles Darwin was a theist when he wrote "On the Origin of Species."

The majority of Christian experts accept evolution, so they are definitely not being discriminated against. If there is any discrimination, it is only against a very small group of creationist experts whose claims have been rejected by the vast majority of experts. It is quite natural that all widely rejected theories are discriminated against to some extent.

I told you that prior to 1800, the vast majority of experts, and laymen accepted creationism, so the playing field was largely against people who accepted evolution, not against creationists. You never complained about that. The process of evolutionary research during the past several centuries that led to today's widespread acceptance of evolution by most experts was more than fair for creationists since they initially had a sizeable advantage over evolutionists.

 

[Pegg]

I meant listening to the actual universe, not what the Watchtower tells you the universe is saying....

i believed in God even before i had any religious education. I've always believed in God, but i have no explanation as to why I believed. I wasnt brought up in a religious household, so its not something that my parent instilled in me.

Thats called 'instinct'

 

[TheGunShoj]

i believed in God even before i had any religious education. I've always believed in God, but i have no explanation as to why I believed. I wasnt brought up in a religious household, so its not something that my parent instilled in me.

Thats called 'instinct'

Ever watched TV, read some books or talked to other people in the world? Being taught about God by your parents isn't the only way to learn about it. You don't live under a rock.

 

[Pegg]

Ever watched TV, read some books or talked to other people in the world? Being taught about God by your parents isn't the only way to learn about it. You don't live under a rock.

i watched plenty of tv when i was a kid... but i never came to believe in 'Mork & Mindy' or 'teenage mutant ninja turtles' or 'superman' or 'Alf' ( yes i was an 80's child )

I didn't believe any of these were real, but i did believe an invisible God whom i had never seen was. Why is that?

 

[Parsimony]

i believed in God even before i had any religious education. I've always believed in God, but i have no explanation as to why I believed. I wasnt brought up in a religious household, so its not something that my parent instilled in me.

Thats called 'instinct'

Humans aren't born with a belief in God. Or at least not everyone is. It has to be learned. The Pirahã people of South America didn't even have a concept of any god originally.

 

[Ouroboros]

And this is the problem. The two just aren't compatible. It would make sense for an Evolutionist to debate another scientific theory, but Creationism isn't a scientific theory it is a spiritual theory. And that's the problem.
The Evolutionist asks the Creationist: "Explain [this]" and the Creationist responds: "Well the Bible says this about [this]. And that's the problem! The Evolutionist will never understand the Creationist and vice-versa.

What are your thoughts on this?

This is pretty much what ended up happening at the Nye v Ham debate recently. Ham's evidence was basically "the Bible says."

 

[Pegg]

Humans aren't born with a belief in God. Or at least not everyone is. It has to be learned. The Pirahã people of South America didn't even have a concept of any god originally.

a 3 year oxford study has revealed that belief in God is an instinct....we are hard wired to believe.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

a 3 year oxford study has revealed that belief in God is an instinct....we are hard wired to believe.

Actually, wrong. The study you're referring to talks about how human instinct leads us to look for intelligence behind things, in the exact same way that we try to identify or characterize animals (or even plants) in terms of human traits, and how we identify patters in nature based on the hardwiring of our brains for human social interaction (like seeing a face on the surface of the moon). This doesn't mean that "belief in God is an instinct", and certainly doesn't mean that we are "born with belief in a God". It simply means that humans are "wired" in such a way that it is easier for us to believe there is an intelligence behind things when we lack actual information about them.

Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife - University of Oxford

 

[Alceste]

This is a partial list, based on a 5-10 minute Google search. Strange that evolutionists can't seem to find any biologists who reject evolution.
Dr. Davey Loos -.biochemist in Belgium.
Dr. WOLF-EKKEHARD LÖNNIG
Dr. PAULA KINCHELOE
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Dr. David A. DeWitt
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. D.B. Gower

That's a pretty short list, my friend, given how many biologists there are in the world. I an willing to google any of these names, but I'm curious about what you think I will find. In my experience, they will all fall into one if these categories:

1) people who have no relevant qualifications.
2) people who acquired a relevant degree but conduct no research.
3) Qualified people who have made cherry picked comments that have been misrepresented by the likes of AIG.

I will google them all if you insist. After all, it's a miniscule list. Or you could save me the trouble and admit you just poached this list from some creationist propaganda mill and know nothing about any of these people.

 

[rusra02]

That's a pretty short list, my friend, given how many biologists there are in the world. I an willing to google any of these names, but I'm curious about what you think I will find. In my experience, they will all fall into one if these categories:

1) people who have no relevant qualifications.
2) people who acquired a relevant degree but conduct no research.
3) Qualified people who have made cherry picked comments that have been misrepresented by the likes of AIG.

I will google them all if you insist. After all, it's a miniscule list. Or you could save me the trouble and admit you just poached this list from some creationist propaganda mill and know nothing about any of these people.

Do whatever you want. As mentioned, it is a partial list, and I'm sure there are many more biologists who reject evolution. I believe the evolutionary emperor has no clothes, and no amount of propaganda or bullying will hide the fact that God created the heavens and the earth.

 

[Agnostic75]

Do whatever you want. As mentioned, it is a partial list, and I'm sure there are many more biologists who reject evolution. I believe the evolutionary emperor has no clothes, and no amount of propaganda or bullying will hide the fact that God created the heavens and the earth.

Dr. Davey Loos -.biochemist in Belgium.
Dr. WOLF-EKKEHARD LÖNNIG
Dr. PAULA KINCHELOE
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Dr. David A. DeWitt
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. D.B. Gower

The vast majority of experts accept evolution.

Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation

According to Newsweek in 1987:

"By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."

That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms to be about 0.14%.

That means that 99.86% of U.S. experts accepted evolution. If that many experts accepted creationism, you would definitely brag about that.

Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs.

The evolutionary course of Equidae (wide family including all horses and related animals) is often viewed as a typical example of macroevolution. The earliest known genus, Hyracotherium (now reclassified as a palaeothere), was a herbivore animal resembling a dog that lived in the early Cenozoic. As its habitat transformed into an open arid grassland, selective pressure required that the animal become a fast grazer. Thus elongation of legs and head as well as reduction of toes gradually occurred, producing the only extant genus of Equidae, Equus.

While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".

How much do you know about paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigra?

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design.

On December 20, 2005, [judge] Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory....... ID is not science.......ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research......."

Judge Jones is a Christian, and was appointed by a Republican president.

In another thread, I asked you several times to critique an article on the flagellum, mutation, and irreducible complexity by Dr. Ken Miller at The Flagellum Unspun, but you refused to do so since you know that you do not understand it well enough to adequately critique it.

You said that people should study the evidence for, and against evolution, but you cannot understand the evidence, and surely the majority of creationists cannot understand it, especially many of them who live in third world countries. So the truth is not that you want people to study the evidence for, and against evolution since you are happy even when people who know very little about biology accept creationism.

You mentioned the movie "Expelled: No intellingence allowed." Wikipedia says:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a 2008 documentary film directed by Nathan Frankowski and hosted by Ben Stein. The film contends that the mainstream science establishment suppresses academics who believe they see evidence of intelligent design in nature and who criticize evidence supporting Darwinian evolution and the modern evolutionary synthesis as a "scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation's laboratories and classrooms." The scientific theory of evolution is portrayed by the film as contributing to fascism, the Holocaust, communism, atheism, and eugenics. The film portrays intelligent design as motivated by science, rather than religion, though it does not give a detailed definition of the phrase or attempt to explain it on a scientific level. Other than briefly addressing issues of irreducible complexity, Expelled examines it as a political issue.

That is utter nonsense since Charles Darwin was a theist when he wrote "On the Origin of Species."

The majority of Christian experts accept evolution, so they are definitely not being discriminated against. If there is any discrimination, it is only against a very small group of creationist experts whose claims have been rejected by the vast majority of experts. It is quite natural that all widely rejected theories are discriminated against to some extent.

I told you that prior to 1800, the vast majority of experts, and laymen accepted creationism, so the playing field was largely against people who accepted evolution, not against creationists. You never complained about that. The process of evolutionary research during the past several centuries that led to today's widespread acceptance of evolution by most experts was more than fair for creationists since they initially had a sizeable advantage over evolutionists. So it was creationists who initially spread propaganda without any credible scientific evidence, and who bullied evolutionists.

Regarding God creating the heavens and the earth, millions of evolutionists believe that God created the heavens and the earth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

i watched plenty of tv when i was a kid... but i never came to believe in 'Mork & Mindy' or 'teenage mutant ninja turtles' or 'superman' or 'Alf' ( yes i was an 80's child )

I didn't believe any of these were real, but i did believe an invisible God whom i had never seen was. Why is that?

I never had any innate belief in God, but as a child, I did have a strong feeling that destroying a musical instrument was akin to murder. If your gut feeling is evidence that God exists, is my gut feeling evidence that inanimate objects have souls?

 

[TheGunShoj]

i watched plenty of tv when i was a kid... but i never came to believe in 'Mork & Mindy' or 'teenage mutant ninja turtles' or 'superman' or 'Alf' ( yes i was an 80's child )

I didn't believe any of these were real, but i did believe an invisible God whom i had never seen was. Why is that?

When I was a child I had a ring. A few times I went outside and put the ring on and the wind seemed to start acting up. It was most likely a coincidence or maybe just imagination or even placebo but I thought that I could control the power of the wind with this ring I had.


The Imagination of a child is very strong indeed. Many kids create imaginary friends who they treat as real entities. I would say that it doesn't sound so far fetched that an imaginary friend starts as or morphs into a god concept once one is discovered. I'm not saying that this is what happened in your scenario or in every case as I have no idea, but It seems a plausible explanation.

 

[Parsimony]

I believe the evolutionary emperor has no clothes, and no amount of propaganda or bullying will hide the fact that God created the heavens and the earth.

Evolution does not address how the Universe and the Earth came into existence anyway.