Christian Evolutionist:

[Renji]

HE HE...well some of you all should really sign up for the church choir. It takes a LOT of faith to believe in evolution!

Lets see what others have to say about evolution.

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable."
Sir Arthur Keith, author of the foreword to the 100th edition of
Origin of the Species.

Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever."
Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA.

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.

"[Evolutionary theory] is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support . . . "
Michael Denton, molecular biologist

Uhmm, I think, it's normal for the scientists to have different beliefs regarding the theory of evolution. See I've red a book saying that not all scientists believe in that theory.... But most of them do believe in it. Just like in Christianity, we also have different beliefs on how to worship God....

 

[Magic Man]

HE HE...well some of you all should really sign up for the church choir. It takes a LOT of faith to believe in evolution!

*sigh* No, it doesn't. It takes very little faith to look at a whole bunch of evidence and say that it seems to have happened this way. It takes a lot of faith, however, to read a story and just believe it and then ignore all of the aforementioned evidence.

Lets see what others have to say about evolution.

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable."
Sir Arthur Keith, author of the foreword to the 100th edition of
Origin of the Species.

That's probably because it's true. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone with any knowledge who thinks that anything in science is "proved or provable". Anyone will freely admit that that's not the case.

However, evolution along with all other scientific theories and laws are supported by heaps and heaps of evidence and predictions made based on them have 100% accuracy.

Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever."
Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA.

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.

"[Evolutionary theory] is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support . . . "
Michael Denton, molecular biologist

These people should not be scientists. If they let their biases get that far in the way, I wouldn't trust them to do any research for me. Remember, "Creation science" isn't actually science.

Now i know that autodidact and painted wolf and the rest of you are extrememly proficient in your jobs as lawyers and IT professionals and biologists...but you are really going to have to give evolution another good look.

No, you are going to have to give evolution a first look. The bottom line is that you need to actually study it before dismissing it. You can't just go on other people's comments about it. It's like telling people what a horrible movie something is based solely on the reviews you've read of it by people who have a personal vendetta against the director/star. Go watch the movie first.

I'm glad you found a few "scientists" who agree with you. No one would deny that those people exist. However, they are by far the exception to the rule, because they are wrong. It's very simple. Evolution is a scientific theory with all the evidence to support it, evidence that you can see for yourself, if you actually take the time to look at it.

 

[Magic Man]

Uhmm, I think, it's normal for the scientists to have different beliefs regarding the theory of evolution. See I've red a book saying that not all scientists believe in that theory.... But most of them do believe in it. Just like in Christianity, we also have different beliefs on how to worship God....

Evolution is not a theory to believe or not to believe. As a scientist they should understand that it's a scientific theory based on mounds of evidence that is used to make all kinds of predictions about our world that so far haven't been wrong. Not "believing in" evolution is like not believing in gravity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lets see what others have to say about evolution.

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable."
Sir Arthur Keith, author of the foreword to the 100th edition of
Origin of the Species.

From allaboutphilosophy.org:

Who was Sir Arthur Keith?

Sir Arthur Keith was the son of a farmer. He was not very scholarly as a child, yet showed promise in the field of medicine. He went on to college, receiving degrees in medicine, science and law. Sir Arthur Keith was born in 1866, and passed away in 1955.

[...]

Sir Arthur Keith studied the human anatomy, as this was apparently most fascinating for him. He wrote in excess of 500 publications regarding this subject on human anatomy, evolution, etc. Perhaps Sir Arthur Keith was most noted for his support of Darwin’s theory of man’s evolution.

So... besides the fact that he presumably wrote the forward more than 50 years ago, looking at Mr. Keith's professional legacy, I have a sneaking suspicion that this quote from him is out of context, like the old trick about claiming that the Bible says "there is no God".

Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever."
Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA.

I don't know Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, but since the AEC disappeared when its functions were split between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Energy and Research Development Administration in 1975, I don't think the quote is that current. Any reason why you have to go back more than 30 years to find an anti-evolution quote from a scientist, and even then not anyone who deals with evolution professionally?

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.

From what I can gather from a quick Google search on this one:

- Prof. Bounoure was never director of the National Centre of Scientific Research
- The first part, "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups", is falsely attributed to him.
- The second part, "This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless", is from a book he wrote called Determinism and Finality, where he discusses the need for theories that make useful predictions. He takes no issue at all with the factual correctness of evolutionary theory; he only doesn't have much use for it (or theories in biology generally) for making predictions in his own work:

That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements.

"[Evolutionary theory] is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support . . . "
Michael Denton, molecular biologist

Well, unlike some of your other fallacious appeals to authority, this one is an accurate representation of what Michael Denton wrote, but it's still a far cry from support, seeing how he's a former Senior Fellow of the creationist Discovery Institute, whose work has been soundly rejected by the scientific community.

Now i know that autodidact and painted wolf and the rest of you are extrememly proficient in your jobs as lawyers and IT professionals and biologists...but you are really going to have to give evolution another good look.

I've given evolution many looks. Perhaps you should give intellectual honesty in debate another look. I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're repeating these lies out of carelessness on your part, but that's becoming harder and harder to do.

 

[Jose Fly]

Heneni,

The question is: Why are you asking questions about, and attempting to discuss the data, when your views are based on something else entirely?

Aren't you kind of missing the root issue here?

 

[Luminous]

These people should not be scientists. If they let their biases get that far in the way, I wouldn't trust them to do any research for me. Remember, "Creation science" isn't actually science.

Yeah, i'm sure all those people were appointed during Bush administration. and look as God's punishment for stupidity: Our world is melting. :sad4:
"Global warming has not been proved."

 

[Luminous]

Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown university: "In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, orrefutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."

Niether does or is history. so don't believe any of it.

Dr. W.R. Thompson, world renowned entomologist: "The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."

the success of religion was accomplished by a lack of intellectual integrity.

Dr. T.N. Tahmisian, a physiologist for the AEC: "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men and the story they are telling mey be the greatest hoax ever."

people who go about saying that reality is a fact are great con men and the story they are telling truely may be THE GREATEST hoax ever.


-- Bla Bla Bla your needs. }: P

 

[Autodidact]

Well, I'm a bit frustrated, as so often happens when one tries to engage creationists regarding evidence. Heneni pops in to share some lies and quote mines, but does not engage or respond to the evidence in any way, nor does she answer my polite and reasonable questions.

Should I take the time to lay out the many other separate lines of evidence? Is anyone reading them?

Next up: Geographical distribution of species.

 

[Magic Man]

Should I take the time to lay out the many other separate lines of evidence? Is anyone reading them?

Next up: Geographical distribution of species.

I wouldn't bother, If I were you. You're welcome to, if it makes you feel better, but if you're doing it to be productive, I'd advise against it.

 

[Autodidact]

Look what they're saying about you, Heneni, that you don't even care about the evidence, after you said there wasn't any. That's not true, is it? You're not the kind of dishonest person who goes around saying a theory is unsupported, then refusing to read about the evidence that supports it, are you? I'm beginning to wonder if you're just an innocent victim of those lying creationists who post those fake quotes from "scientists" on the internet, or if you're less than honest yourself. Prove them wrong, Heneni!

 

[Renji]

Evolution is not a theory to believe or not to believe. As a scientist they should understand that it's a scientific theory based on mounds of evidence that is used to make all kinds of predictions about our world that so far haven't been wrong. Not "believing in" evolution is like not believing in gravity.

Sorry, my fault. I've run out of words to describe the theory....

 

[Heneni]

Micheal Behe used to say the same thing about the bacterial flagellum until Nicholas Matzke proved him wrong. Why should we believe that your assumption about DNA is any less mistaken? After all, RNA, which is only half of a DNA strand, is perfectly capable of reproducing itself.

If you don't believe that evolution can happen, then how can you assign any meaningful probabilities to it happening?

The reproduction of DNA and RNA is not the issue here. DNA and RNA is essential for life to exist in the first place. So if the evolution theory starts from the basis of DNA and RNA existing already, we cannot say that evolution is how life started, because DNA and RNA has to be present at the same time and work together to sustain life.

 

[Heneni]

I've given evolution many looks. Perhaps you should give intellectual honesty in debate another look. I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're repeating these lies out of carelessness on your part, but that's becoming harder and harder to do.

Im sorry but your analyses of my intellectual honesty is lacking.

 

[fantome profane]

we cannot say that evolution is how life started,

Ding ding ding ding, give that lady a cigar!:cigar:

You are exactly right, we cannot say evolution is how life started, and we don’t say that. Evolution has nothing to do with how life started. Evolution explains the development and the diversity of life.

 

[Heneni]

No one knows

Why not? Chemists are able to predict with quite some certainty which chemicals will and wont react. If evolutionists say that a chemical reaction is the basis of life...then the prediction of what we will evolve into based on chemical reaction facts easy rahter than 'no one knows'.

This question doesn't make sense. It's like asking, why is the moon so far from the earth and not further. We have evolved the amount we have in the time we've had in which to evolve. There's a lot of math in this, but Biologists tell us that the diversity of life about matches the time there's been for it to have evolved.

My question doesnt make any sense...or you dont have an answer?

I think you need to understand that evolution is about all life, not primarily human life. All life has been evolving for over 3 billion years.

Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. So your 'gradual' needs to be backed up by some evidence that life has been 'evolving for 3 billion years' . And so they use carbon dating to date things, but we all know carbon dating is flawed.

And don't forget that "natural selection" is supposed to retain those individuals which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited to either its old environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only alive, but improved?

While a fish grows a leg, the leg is completely useless and therefore not condusive to its current environment and therefore since its evolving into something that is not helping it be a better fish in the water, i can hardly see why it would evolve a leg in the first place. And if the fish crawled out of the water legless, it wont survive the next day before it can develop a leg to walk on.

NO, but you need to understand the scientific method to understand evolution. Do you? Do you know what methodological naturalism means?[/

Since i started this debate i have made it solely about the scientific method, and you have not in way shape form or fashion shown me, how good scientific methods have been used to validate the 'theory' of evolution.

 

[Heneni]

Ding ding ding ding, give that lady a cigar!:cigar:

You are exactly right, we cannot say evolution is how life started, and we don’t say that. Evolution has nothing to do with how life started. Evolution explains the development and the diversity of life.

HE HE...thanks for the cigar. So your saying that evolutionists DONT say they know how life started? Only how life progressed. Do you think a fish..while devoloping a leg was wondering at any point in time....why is this thing growing out from the side of me. Or why is my fins changing into feet? It slows me down....darn...now im going to get eaten!!! Or maybe there werent any preditors around to eat it...and then you have to wonder...if the fins changing into legs were really necessary in the first place.

 

[fantome profane]

HE HE...thanks for the cigar. So your saying that evolutionists DONT say they know how life started? Only how life progressed.

Yes, that is what I am saying. How many thousands of times have you been told that evolution is not abiogenesis. Are you just now beginning to understand that?

Do you think a fish..while devoloping a leg was wondering at any point in time....why is this thing growing out from the side of me. Or why is my fins changing into feet? It slows me down....darn...now im going to get eaten!!! Or maybe there werent any preditors around to eat it...and then you have to wonder...if the fins changing into legs were really necessary in the first place.

If you want to study the evolution of legs there is lots of information out there for you to look at. But don’t just dismiss the concept just because it doesn’t make sense to you right away. If you want to understand the theory you will need to put some effort into it. Many concepts in science are counter intuitive.

 

[Heneni]

Yes, that is what I am saying. How many thousands of times have you been told that evolution is not abiogenesis. Are you just now beginning to understand that?

Putting abiogenesis into the 'evolution vs creationism' thread was NOT my idea?

 

[fantome profane]

Putting abiogenesis into the 'evolution vs creationism' thread was NOT my idea?

Is that a question?

It shouldn’t matter who bought it up. If you want to talk about evolution you should at least understand the basic concept well enough to understand that evolution is not abiogenesis. Do you understand that now? If someone else confuses the two concepts you should correct them.

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

HE HE...thanks for the cigar. So your saying that evolutionists DONT say they know how life started? Only how life progressed. Do you think a fish..while devoloping a leg was wondering at any point in time....why is this thing growing out from the side of me. Or why is my fins changing into feet? It slows me down....darn...now im going to get eaten!!! Or maybe there werent any preditors around to eat it...and then you have to wonder...if the fins changing into legs were really necessary in the first place.

1. Christians believe that God created everything, so no, no one is saying evolution is how life started.
2. Evolution of that sort would take millions of years, thus, your making fun of it just shows that you really don't understand what you're talking about.
3. It wouldn't turn into legs if it weren't necessary, conditions of the environment
cause these things to happen over periods of time.