Creationist - What about Evolution you disagree with?

[David M]

Apparently Sanford believes that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and our genes are devolving. I wonder how he explains the fossil record - is time actually running backwards and the fossils are what we are devolving into?

What really doesn't make sense is Sanford's claim that humanity cannot be thousands of generations old because the genome would deteriorate while we are surrounded be species that are tens and hundreds of thousands of years old because they breed so much faster than humans.

According to Sanford Drosophila species would become extinct in just over a decade.

The truth of the matter is that Sanford's model is garbage, it does not even begin to model evolution correctly and only works on non-viable population sizes.

 

[Krok]

What really doesn't make sense is Sanford's claim that humanity cannot be thousands of generations old because the genome would deteriorate while we are surrounded be species that are tens and hundreds of thousands of years old because they breed so much faster than humans.

According to Sanford Drosophila species would become extinct in just over a decade.

The truth of the matter is that Sanford's model is garbage, it does not even begin to model evolution correctly and only works on non-viable population sizes.

Feeding real life information into Sanford's model, organisms like mice, rats and rabbits would have gone extinct a long time ago as well.

 

[McBell]

There is nothing to debate Mestemia. It is a fact of life that some credentialed scientists disagree with TOE. It doesn't matter if it is 1% or 13%. And as long as you continue to dispute it, I will come back and paste this information.

When it comes to contemporary scientific issues, these differences are often even larger. Most notably, 87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection. Just 32% of the public accepts this as true.
Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Overview - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

You lot are the ones straining this point and being unable to accept a fairly clear fact. I am also prepared to strain it for a long as you wish to come back and refute it.

This is not about disproving TOE. It is about saying that you do not have to be uneducated or ignorant to be skeptical of TOE. There are some very clever people out there that also have some problems with it.

I have not once claimed that every single scientist accepts ToE.
That is your strawman.
The strawman that makes you look like a complete arse.

It is not my fault that you lack the basic comprehension skills to understand that the crap you continuously post does not say what you want it to say.
I do find it comical that even after having it explained to you numerous times by various people you continue on as if you have your fingers in your ears and are humming as loud as you can.

You are not the least bit interested in truth, facts, or even reality.
You are only interested in your agenda.

 

[Noaidi]

It is a fact of life that some credentialed scientists disagree with TOE...

...This is not about disproving TOE. It is about saying that you do not have to be uneducated or ignorant to be skeptical of TOE. There are some very clever people out there that also have some problems with it.

Even if your figures were reversed (13% for and 87% against), I would still go with the 13%. Why? Because of the availability of evidence. If the 87% of biologists disagreed with it for biblical reasons (as seems to be the case), then that is no reason to accept what they are saying.

Scientific enquiry and acceptance isn't about how many 'believe' in a theory. It's not a numbers game. So you can post figures all you like, but it won't detract the value or significance of the evidence accumulated in favour of evolution thus far.

 

[newhope101]

Even if your figures were reversed (13% for and 87% against), I would still go with the 13%. Why? Because of the availability of evidence. If the 87% of biologists disagreed with it for biblical reasons (as seems to be the case), then that is no reason to accept what they are saying.

Scientific enquiry and acceptance isn't about how many 'believe' in a theory. It's not a numbers game. So you can post figures all you like, but it won't detract the value or significance of the evidence accumulated in favour of evolution thus far.

I do not know what level your comprehension is at. You lot keep going on with...

"but it won't detract the value or significance of the evidence accumulated in favour of evolution thus far"

Did you miss my saying this is NOT about disproving evolution. It is about the fact that SOME credentialed scientists disbelieve TOE and that proves that all those that disbelieve in TOE are not uneducated and ignorant. A fairly clear and obvious fact many of you are having difficulty grasping.


One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.

"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." 5

Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net
​

So when you call a creationist ignorant or uneducated simply because of their beliefs, you are a liar. Why? Because there are plenty of educated, credentialed and non ignorant scientists out there that are also creationists.

 

[Autodidact]

I do not know what level your comprehension is at. You lot keep going on with...

"but it won't detract the value or significance of the evidence accumulated in favour of evolution thus far"

Did you miss my saying this is NOT about disproving evolution. It is about the fact that SOME credentialed scientists disbelieve TOE and that proves that all those that disbelieve in TOE are not uneducated and ignorant. A fairly clear and obvious fact many of you are having difficulty grasping.


<b>One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.

"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." 5

Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net
​

</b>

So when you call a creationist ignorant or uneducated simply because of their beliefs, you are a liar. Why? Because there are plenty of educated, credentialed and non ignorant scientists out there that are also creationists.

Yet another chemist.
I wonder why so few Biologists disagree with ToE?

 

[camanintx]

Dearry, the point being that you can longer say that every scientist agrees with TOE and those that do not are uneducated idiots. This is a line you lot like to shove up creationists.

New Gallup poll: America still creationist (surprise!) « Why Evolution Is True

13% do not agree with TOE. Meaning more than 1 out of every 8 and the number has grown since the '80's.

I have made my point, and I'll shove it up you when ever necessary.

Typical of newhope, she claims that scientific support for evolution has dropped since the 80's then posts a link that shows public support of evolution has grown from 46% in 1982 to 54% in 2010.

 

[camanintx]

So when you call a creationist ignorant or uneducated simply because of their beliefs, you are a liar. Why? Because there are plenty of educated, credentialed and non ignorant scientists out there that are also creationists.

Nobody ever said scientists were immune from cognitive dissonance.

 

[barek333]

NewHope : "Did you miss my saying this is NOT about disproving evolution. It is about the fact that SOME credentialed scientists disbelieve TOE and that proves that all those that disbelieve in TOE are not uneducated and ignorant. A fairly clear and obvious fact many of you are having difficulty grasping."

SOME != ALL. I dont think anyone here...well I cant say that..ok I rephrase...I for one never said that I think everyone believing in Creation are uneducated and ignorant...but I do think MOST of them are.

Just look at your own numbers..if 3% of people educated in the matter think ToE is wrong..and..what did you write 40-50-60%? of the general population doesnt believe in ToE. Ad to that the percentages of university students and so on....you get about 0.01% of Creationist are highly educated scientists, about 10% are students...and almost 90% are people lacking the basic knowledge of evolution coz they never got to study it(creationist websites,books,movies etc. do not represent a valid source for the study of evolution). On those terms we can safely determine that MOST of the people that believe in the creation are indeed uneducated and ignorant..of course as far as the field of evolution is concerned.-> I would never argue that good ol' reverend Hovind isnt grade A preacher/car salesman material

 

[Jose Fly]

Yet another chemist.
I wonder why so few Biologists disagree with ToE?

Ever read any of AE Wilder Smith's evolution denialist material? "Delusional" doesn't do it justice.

 

[Gunfingers]

Did you miss my saying this is NOT about disproving evolution. It is about the fact that SOME credentialed scientists disbelieve TOE and that proves that all those that disbelieve in TOE are not uneducated and ignorant. A fairly clear and obvious fact many of you are having difficulty grasping.

Your stated goal has repeatedly been to disprove evolution. When you bring up a point it's pretty fair to assume that's where you're going with it. Even in this case you're trying to say that people who deny evolution aren't ignorant so that you can use that as ammunition against evolution later on.

 

[Noaidi]

I do not know what level your comprehension is at. You lot keep going on with...

"but it won't detract the value or significance of the evidence accumulated in favour of evolution thus far"


Did you miss my saying this is NOT about disproving evolution. It is about the fact that SOME credentialed scientists disbelieve TOE and that proves that all those that disbelieve in TOE are not uneducated and ignorant. A fairly clear and obvious fact many of you are having difficulty grasping.

So when you call a creationist ignorant or uneducated simply because of their beliefs, you are a liar. Why? Because there are plenty of educated, credentialed and non ignorant scientists out there that are also creationists.

I didn't dispute that some scientists (even some biologists) dispute ToE (so my level of comprehension is just fine, thank you).

Did you not read my recent post regarding Dr Henry Zuill? A well-credentialed scientist, I assume. It's his (and others) rejection of ToE on unverifiable biblical grounds that is up for discussion. Claiming that 'degenerate' and 'blighted' traits (his words, not mine) such as predation and parasitism are the result of Man's fall is definitely not science (no evidence to verify it for a start). I'm not claiming that all creationists are ignorant regarding science - I'm saying that many have a distorted view of it because of their religious beliefs.

 

[newhope101]

Actually barek333 I produced stats for 13% non believing scientists. Regardless the point is one does not have to be uneducated to reject TOE. At least you have the intellectual capacity to understand that, unlike many here.

You actually have many scientists that refute each other eg birds. These scientists, that offer alternative hypothesis, also reject each others work as invalid or not convincing, hence the search for alternative or conflicting theories.

The difference between the evolutionary researchers and creationist researchers is that an evolutionary researcher still upholds TOE and will offer an alternative hypothesis, still maintaining the concept of TOE.

A creationist researcher will also reject the evidence as invalid or unconvincing, just like evolutionary researchers do with each other. The difference being creationist scientists do not offer another evolutionary hypothesis, but rather a creative one.

Your own evolutionary researchers often dispute each others work at varying levels. Hence to me it appears that evolutionary researchers invalidate each others work regularly, but this is OK with you because they still maintian TOE, but with alternative hypothesis.

However for me this behaviour demonstrates that most of your theoretical science can be invalidated or brought into question fairly easily from within your own evolutionary research data. Birds is one example of a plethora. If you have been following my posts you will know some of them. The fact that these evolutionary researchers still uphold TOE is irrelevant.

Sanford is a creationist scientist that has produced work to back his creationist claims. The fact that evolutionary researchers refute it is very likely as they refute each other also over many issues. How much more strongly will they offer refutes to non evolutionary assertations?

If you wish to refute Sanford, please use research rather than opinions.

John Sanford - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Genetic Entropy and Genetic Debris

http://creationwiki.org/Creationist_book

 

[Alceste]

NewHope. Why don't you allow yourself to be educated? There are many patient people here with a deep understanding of science in general and biology in particular who are more that willing to take on the job.

 

[Jose Fly]

NewHope. Why don't you allow yourself to be educated? There are many patient people here with a deep understanding of science in general and biology in particular who are more that willing to take on the job.

Unfortunately, NewHope has shown herself for what she is. She is simply here to preach at everyone. Like any other sermon, there is no Q&A session, no disagreement is acknowledged, and if any doubt is expressed, the sermon is simply repeated a little louder.

Many internet creationists are simply not worth bothering with; NewHope is definitely one of them.

 

[Alceste]

Unfortunately, NewHope has shown herself for what she is. She is simply here to preach at everyone. Like any other sermon, there is no Q&A session, no disagreement is acknowledged, and if any doubt is expressed, the sermon is simply repeated a little louder.

Many internet creationists are simply not worth bothering with; NewHope is definitely one of them.

Maybe so. Still, I have to wonder why she persists despite her endless failure to persuade anyone else she is right, or even that she knows what she's talking about.

 

[Jose Fly]

Maybe so. Still, I have to wonder why she persists despite her endless failure to persuade anyone else she is right, or even that she knows what she's talking about.

The ironic thing is that in her effort to argue that creationists aren't all ignorant and uneducated, she's made herself look extremely ignorant and ineducable.

 

[Skwim]

In as much as newhope101 has been so much a part of the discussion here I thought it might be interesting to see how she's kept herself so involved. What follows is just one of the ways, namely, ignoring what shes been told and simply repeating her bogus claim. This particular one involves the percentage of scientists who believe in evolution versus those who don't.

"There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection. Just 32% of the public accepts this as true."
(newhope101 post 72)[my emphasis]
​

Note that the two figures are given in regard to scientists versus the general public. No qualification as to what kind of scientists or what kind of public---other than just those of the USA. Note too that in her initial reply where she cited her figures, she was addressing scientist as a whole, and never sought to qualify that characterization, and, in fact, let that impression remain throughout her subsequent posts.
That said, I invite everyone to follow the chronology of her remarks regarding her claimed 87% and 13%, and those of us who have tried to help her see her error.


NEWHOPE101 post #72 03-05-2011, 11:36 AM
A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection. Just 32% of the public accepts this as true."



NEWHOPE101 post #132 Yesterday, 11:14 AM
There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection. Just 32% of the public accepts this as true."[39]

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

100-87=13%...that do not !!!!!



SKWIM post # 145 Yesterday, 01:42 PM
Note that the question asked is "[Do you believe] Humans and other living things have Evolved over time, which was answered in the affirmative by 97% of the scientists, that is, 97% of scientists believe in evolution.
In the Pew report this is broken down into two categories: Evolution 1) Due to natural processes, and 2) Guided by a supreme being.

Where your 87% comes into play is the manner in which evolution occurs. This percentage accounts for only those scientists who believe Humans and other living things have Evolved over time Due to natural processes---no supreme being acting as guide.
Then there's the additional 8% that also believe in evolution, but believe it's guided by a supreme being. This in no way implies they didn't evolve--"existed in their present form since the beginning of time" the creationists contention, which is accounted for by the 2% as listed. ( I surmise that the 87% figure plus the 8% figure don't add up to 97% because of rounding up.)


NEWHOPE101 post #154 Yesterday, 04:28 PM
The sad fact for you is that in 2009 only 87% of scientists adhered to TOE, and 13% did not. I would also assert that a great many scientists would not be happy to go on record as being a decanter, regardless of the confidentiality promised.



SKWIM post #156 Yesterday, 04:52 PM
You evidently passed by my reply to your claim here or are simply ignoring it in favor of passing along more bogus percentages. In any case, I invite you and anyone else taken in by your 87% and 13% figure to go HERE



NEWHOPE101 post#159 Yesterday, 05:58 PM
13% do not agree with TOE. Meaning more than 1 out of every 8 and the number has grown since the '80's.


SKWIM post #162 Old Yesterday, 06:26 PM
Ah, the last desperate measure of the defeated: violence. &#8594; &#8226; [clicking on the dot would bring newhope101 to my post, #145]



PAINTED WOLF post #166 Yesterday, 06:48 PM
Once again you aren't actually paying attention to what you cut and paste.

87% don't think god had anything to do with it... 8% still go with evolution, as a god directed process (like myself)... that is 97%

only 2% actually rejects Evolution.

You are once again pulling a tricoplax and not actually paying attention.

Daily Number: Evolutionary Theory - Pew Research Center



NEWHOPE101 post #177 Today, 12:04 AM
When it comes to contemporary scientific issues, these differences are often even larger. Most notably, 87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection



DAVID M post #179 Today, 02:35 AM
As I pointed out in post #77 of this thread the percentage of scientists who agree with evolution in the Pew Poll is 95% (of the 97% who answered). You are ignoring the 8% who agreed that "Human Beings and and other living things have evolved over time...Guided by Supreme Being".



NEWHOPE101 post #193 Today, 10:46 AM
Actually barek333 I produced stats for 13% non believing scientists.

I can only hope that newhope101 sees the light.

 

[David M]

I can only hope that newhope101 sees the light.

You should know by now that Newhope cannot see uncomfortable facts that show she is not telling the whole truth.

Expect to see the "13% of scientists don't believe in evolution" reproduced a number of times.

 

[painted wolf]

I can only hope that newhope101 sees the light.

They say hope springs eternal.

wa:do