Atheists are in fact Creationists

[rusra02]

You state that "evolution may be proven false one day, it's how science works."
That is not the song being sung in this forum, and elsewhere by evolutionists. More typical of evolutionists are statements such as 'evolution is a fact' and 'only fools and crazy persons don't accept evolution.' As I believe your post revealed, the fossil record is subject to interpretation. It clearly, at least to me, does not support the notion of a gradual evolution but rather, the relatively rapid appearance of major life groups. This is exactly what one would expect to find, based on the account in Genesis.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You state that "evolution may be proven false one day, it's how science works."
That is not the song being sung in this forum, and elsewhere by evolutionists. More typical of evolutionists are statements such as 'evolution is a fact' and 'only fools and crazy persons don't accept evolution.' As I believe your post revealed, the fossil record is subject to interpretation. It clearly, at least to me, does not support the notion of a gradual evolution but rather, the relatively rapid appearance of major life groups. This is exactly what one would expect to find, based on the account in Genesis.

Personally, I'm still trying to work out what an 'evolutionist' is. But I have absolutely and consistently put forth the view that science is a method, not an answer. And that the 'answers' science has come up with represent our best efforts to understand the world around us based on what we can currently prove. And that's it.

Meanwhile, you have yet to even acknowledge my last post.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You state that "evolution may be proven false one day, it's how science works."
That is not the song being sung in this forum, and elsewhere by evolutionists. More typical of evolutionists are statements such as 'evolution is a fact' and 'only fools and crazy persons don't accept evolution.' As I believe your post revealed, the fossil record is subject to interpretation. It clearly, at least to me, does not support the notion of a gradual evolution but rather, the relatively rapid appearance of major life groups. This is exactly what one would expect to find, based on the account in Genesis.

All creation myths have that account. Ever heard how man and was created in Nordic Mythology? Or Egyptian Mythology? Or Greek Mythology, or Bablyonian?

Under the evidence provided evolution is a fact. Facts can change when new evidence appears. So when I say May, I'm talking about the future but as of now with the information that is given it is a fact.

The post also further goes to show that the Cambrian Explosion as more evidence is gathered may not have been as big or rapid of a change as previously thought. So it still would have been gradual.

 

[rusra02]

All creation myths have that account. Ever heard how man and was created in Nordic Mythology? Or Egyptian Mythology? Or Greek Mythology, or Bablyonian?

Under the evidence provided evolution is a fact. Facts can change when new evidence appears. So when I say May, I'm talking about the future but as of now with the information that is given it is a fact.

The post also further goes to show that the Cambrian Explosion as more evidence is gathered may not have been as big or rapid of a change as previously thought. So it still would have been gradual.

The Babylonian myth of creation is to the history in Genesis as a shack is to a palace. Regarding ancient creation myths in general, this statement is relevant: “No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe, and those concerned with the organization of the universe and its cultural processes, the creation of man and the establishment of civilization are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb. monotheism of Gn. 1-2.”—New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. Douglas, 1985, p. 247.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The Babylonian myth of creation is to the history in Genesis as a shack is to a palace. Regarding ancient creation myths in general, this statement is relevant: “No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe, and those concerned with the organization of the universe and its cultural processes, the creation of man and the establishment of civilization are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb. monotheism of Gn. 1-2.”—New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. Douglas, 1985, p. 247.

I was only naming a few. J. Douglass certailny needs to read up on his cultural understanding of mythology. As he has not looked at the creation myths of Africa of Northern America, of Central America, of South America, nor that of the Asian Continent.

There are creation myths all over the world, some more complex than others.

As well you keep quoting things that are over 20 years old, does not history and new information march on?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Your statement that there is no "notable disconfirmation" of the ToE is patently false, of course.

Only if its opposite day. As you yourself have noted, words aren't magic, and the shrill creationist refrain that there is some secret mysterious but compelling evidentiary disconfirmation of the ToE (which is never forthcoming) doesn't make it so.

If you think, contrary to about 95% of scientists in a related field (according to numerous surveys and polls) that the ToE has had any notable disconfirmation, there are alot of people who would like to see it. Hell, if it checked out, you'd like be in for a Nobel Prize.

I see time and again the claim repeated by evolutionists as if a magic incantation: "the debate is over, evolution is a fact."

Except, in biology and related fields, the debate IS over. There are no controversies in any of the scientific journals over evolution, and no reputable scientist is pursuing research under an alternative theoretic paradigm. Doing biology means evolution, which means the debate is effectively over.

But millions of thinking persons, and many scientists, do not agree.

You're clearly using the word "thinking" awfully generously, and most of these people are fundamentalist Christians in the US. We're the only developed country in which any notable portion of the population disbelieves in evolution (save New Zealand), and the scientists opposed to evolution are a tiny minority (often with questionable credentials and motives).

More importantly, the facts don't agree.

Secret or imaginary facts, I suppose...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Can someone confirm to me that my posts are actually appearing over the magic interweb thingy? Rusra02 seems completely unable to see them...

 

[Ouroboros]

Can someone confirm to me that my posts are actually appearing over the magic interweb thingy? Rusra02 seems completely unable to see them...

Yes. Lo and behold, I can see them, and they're all good.

 

[johnhanks]

Your statement that there is no "notable disconfirmation" of the ToE is patently false, of course. And your interpretation of the fossil evidence toes the evolutionary line. The fossil record shows major groups of animals appear suddenly. After reviewing the evidence of the fossil record, biologist Jonathan Wells writes: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.”

Ah yes, biologist Jonathan Wells:

Wells joined the Unification Church in 1974, and subsequently wrote that the teachings of church founder Sun Myung Moon, his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers convinced him to devote his life to "destroying Darwinism."

You really need to choose your authorities more carefully, rusra.

In 2005 [Wells] debated Massimo Pigliucci on the PBS talk show Uncommon Knowledge.[31] Pigliucci said Wells that "clearly lied" during his debates and misrepresented his agenda and science, as well as not understanding some of the theories he tries to attack.

Quote us a dismissal of evolution from a biologist who has not got a predetermined religious agenda and you may be on to something.

 

[rusra02]

Ah yes, biologist Jonathan Wells:
You really need to choose your authorities more carefully, rusra.
Quote us a dismissal of evolution from a biologist who has not got a predetermined religious agenda and you may be on to something.

Ah, the evolutionist refrain; "any biologist that does not toe the evolutionary line is a wag and a scoundrel." I have noted that virtually ALL who disagree with the ToE are attacked personally and/or professionally, and their motives impugned.
Any who are interested in Dr. Wells response to these attacks can reference his website.
Little wonder, IMO, why so few biologists have spoken out regarding the weaknesses of the ToE.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Ah, the evolutionist refrain; "any biologist that does not toe the evolutionary line is a wag and a scoundrel." I have noted that virtually ALL who disagree with the ToE are attacked personally and/or professionally, and their motives impugned.
Any who are interested in Dr. Wells response to these attacks can reference his website.
Little wonder, IMO, why so few biologists have spoken out regarding the weaknesses of the ToE.

So few do because under a scientific standard it is correct. Under a theological one they may disagree.

The only "weakness" you've mentioned us the Cambrian explosion, and as science marches on we realize its not as explosive as we once thought it was.

But Jonathan wells is noted to be member of different groups with highly religious motives.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ah, the evolutionist refrain; "any biologist that does not toe the evolutionary line is a wag and a scoundrel." I have noted that virtually ALL who disagree with the ToE are attacked personally and/or professionally, and their motives impugned.
Any who are interested in Dr. Wells response to these attacks can reference his website.
Little wonder, IMO, why so few biologists have spoken out regarding the weaknesses of the ToE.

Good grief, you're claiming the moral high ground?

In simple terms, can you please respond to post #137

 

[johnhanks]

Ah, the evolutionist refrain; "any biologist that does not toe the evolutionary line is a wag and a scoundrel." I have noted that virtually ALL who disagree with the ToE are attacked personally and/or professionally, and their motives impugned.

Motives impugned? Wells has come out and stated his motives - for religious (not scientific) reasons he has devoted his career to "destroying Darwinism". How can I be impugning his motives by quoting his own words on them?

Little wonder, IMO, why so few biologists have spoken out regarding the weaknesses of the ToE.

If the theory really is as flimsy as you claim, and is being sustained by systematic fraud, fame and fortune await the first authoritative whistle-blower. You invariably counter this with drivel about cowed scientists perpetuating the fraud for fear of their careers: but think - as soon as the fraud had been exposed, their careers would no longer be in danger, would they? Your reasoning falls apart on first inspection.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Motives impugned? Wells has come out and stated his motives - for religious (not scientific) reasons he has devoted his career to "destroying Darwinism". How can I be impugning his motives by quoting his own words on them?
If the theory really is as flimsy as you claim, and is being sustained by systematic fraud, fame and fortune await the first authoritative whistle-blower. You invariably counter this with drivel about cowed scientists perpetuating the fraud for fear of their careers: but think - as soon as the fraud had been exposed, their careers would no longer be in danger, would they? Your reasoning falls apart on first inspection.

It blows my mind that people forget how competitive people are.

The scientist who would prove evolution false would go down in history among the top scientist in the world.

Scientist will do their best to one-up each other. It's what makes it such a powerful field.

It harnesess the power of human competitiveness and guides it. Telling you that you have to prove it within these parameters this way you find a good way to filter out the liars and false leaders.

I would turn to the Bohr-Einstein debates.

Einstein is considered one of our greatest scientists, but when QM (quantum mechanics), was becoming apparent he could not believe it (mind you he believed that there was more of a strict cause and effect to everything, QM seems to indicate that there isn't). He spent his entire time fighting against it, but eventually as more and more evidence comes up we accept that in that regard Einstein was wrong. Science proved another scientist wrong...one of the greatest scientist there ever was.

 

[McBell]

As mentioned often, a common ploy of evolutionists, when confronted with evidence contrary to their theory, is to attack the purveyor of such evidence. The quote mentioned referenced at least three different sources, not one. Personal attacks will not change the fact that the ToE is smoke and mirrors, not true science. And pretending the question is resolved and the debate won will not make it so.

Except you have not presented any credible evidence that ToE is wrong.

In fact, all you have done is reveal a gross ignorance of evolution while jumping up and down screaming "ToE is Wrong!"

 

[McBell]

Ah, the evolutionist refrain; "any biologist that does not toe the evolutionary line is a wag and a scoundrel." I have noted that virtually ALL who disagree with the ToE are attacked personally and/or professionally, and their motives impugned.
Any who are interested in Dr. Wells response to these attacks can reference his website.
Little wonder, IMO, why so few biologists have spoken out regarding the weaknesses of the ToE.

I find it extremely interesting how you are so quick to resort to the very thing you whine so much about "evolutionists" supposedly do...

 

[rusra02]

Motives impugned? Wells has come out and stated his motives - for religious (not scientific) reasons he has devoted his career to "destroying Darwinism". How can I be impugning his motives by quoting his own words on them?
If the theory really is as flimsy as you claim, and is being sustained by systematic fraud, fame and fortune await the first authoritative whistle-blower. You invariably counter this with drivel about cowed scientists perpetuating the fraud for fear of their careers: but think - as soon as the fraud had been exposed, their careers would no longer be in danger, would they? Your reasoning falls apart on first inspection.

I believe you are aware, or should be aware of many scientists who have presented evidence debunking the ToE.

 

[fantome profane]

I believe you are aware, or should be aware of many scientists who have presented evidence debunking the ToE.

Many? How many is many?

Name three scientists who with a Phd in a biological field who reject common descent.

You have been debating this subject for years now on this board, so this should be very easy for you to do. If there are so many it should be no problem at all to just name three.

 

[secret2]

I believe you are aware, or should be aware of many scientists who have presented evidence debunking the ToE.

Before going through this mud pit again, you still owe us some answers to demonstrate your understanding.

- If "micro evolution" is possible and is observed, what is there to stop a species to go from micro to macro? What/where is the boundary?
- More importantly, what is a species in the context of modern biology?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Hello? Rusra02? Can you please respond to post #137?
I'm happy with a retraction of your original statement, or whatever. But simply ignoring my posts, whilst some sort of admission I guess, is not going to make me vanish.

So, again...please...your thoughts on post #137?