Holes in Darwin's Theory?

[rusra02]

The sleight of hand here resides in the words "the process thereafter". The evolution of existing populations by natural selection (and/or by other means) is not the same process (or even the same kind of process) as the chemical events by which the first replicating cells arose. We have as yet only a sketchy understanding of the latter, but that puts no constraints on our understanding of the former.

For the most part we have very little idea how a language's grammatical rules came into being; that does not stop us understanding the language.

I disagree with your analogy. The TOE does try to explain how life developed, much the same way someone may study a languages development. Understanding the behavior of an animal does not mean you understand or know how it got here, anymore than understanding a language gives insight into its origins. The ToE claims to know how life developed but cannot explain its origins. The Bible, however, does explain both origin and process. (Psalm 36:9, Genesis 1)

 

[McBell]

Are you implying persons who reject the TOE believe the world is flat, etc.? Millions reject the ToE because they have examined the evidence both for and against the theory, and have found the TOE unconvincing.

Where did I make any such claim?
Where did I even imply such a claim?
Other than in your head?

I merely pointed out the fact that millions of people believing something does not make that something true. You keep presenting "millions of people" as though you think it does.

You have created and now maintain a mantra ("millions of people") and keep presenting it as though it helps your argument.
It does not help your argument at all.
In fact, it merely shows you are stuck on that particular fallacy.

Then to strawman the point when it is presented shows not only desperation, but also dishonesty.

 

[McBell]

Are there even millions of scientist out there? I mean I'm sure it's a high number, but Millions of scientists???

I do not recall his claiming "millions of scientists".
The closest I have seen is "millions of people, including scientists".

 

[McBell]

Millions, including scientists who study in the field.

Please present a list of some of these "scientists" who reject evolution.

Until such time as you can present a list, I will have to assume you are merely repeating an unsubstantiated claim.

 

[McBell]

I disagree with your analogy. The TOE does try to explain how life developed, much the same way someone may study a languages development. Understanding the behavior of an animal does not mean you understand or know how it got here, anymore than understanding a language gives insight into its origins. The ToE claims to know how life developed but cannot explain its origins. The Bible, however, does explain both origin and process. (Psalm 36:9, Genesis 1)

The Bible is extremely short lived in explaining origin and process.

 

[Ouroboros]

Are there even millions of scientist out there? I mean I'm sure it's a high number, but Millions of scientists???

There's about a half million scientists in America and 2 million engineers. A few years back, the estimate that 700 scientists believed in Creationism.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I do not recall his claiming "millions of scientists".
The closest I have seen is "millions of people, including scientists".

So it could easily be 2 scientists....

 

[McBell]

So it could easily be 2 scientists....

I suppose it depends upon how he defines "scientist".
I have seen on RF some people define "scientist" as anyone with a college degree.
regardless of what said degree is in or what "college" it came from.

 

[rusra02]

Please present a list of some of these "scientists" who reject evolution.

Until such time as you can present a list, I will have to assume you are merely repeating an unsubstantiated claim.

Anyone interested in such a list can Google it on the Internet. But you knew this already, didn't you Mestemia.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Anyone interested in such a list can Google it on the Internet.

You can also Google a list of people who have been abducted by aliens.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You can also Google a list of people who have been abducted by aliens.

15 People Who Have Been Abducted by Aliens Photo Gallery - Antonio Villas Boas - Conspiracies on truTV.com

 

[McBell]

Anyone interested in such a list can Google it on the Internet. But you knew this already, didn't you Mestemia.

So it shouldn't be a problem presenting at least a partial list of scientists that reject the theory of evolution.

I am not about to do your homework for you.
You made the claim, you support it.

 

[McBell]

Millions, including scientists who study in the field.

Please present a list of "scientists who study in the field" who reject the theory of evolution.


Again, you made the claim, it is on you to support said claim.
And this is a different claim than the last one you have refused to support.

In this claim you specify scientists "in the field".

 

[Skwim]

Meanwhile we have Project Steve, which has accumulated 1,284 "Stevens" as of October 25, 2013.

Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution."

​

They all subscribe to the following:

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."
source
​

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Meanwhile we have Project Steve, which has accumulated 1,284 "Stevens" as of October 25, 2013.

Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution."

​

They all subscribe to the following:

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."
source
​

Yeah, I mentioned this one in the Texas Textbooks thread, and got exactly zero response.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3542169-post50.html

In simple terms, scientists with proven credentials found ID claims of having largescale scientific support equal parts laughable and disingenuous, and so decided to respond by showing there were more credential scientists called Steve willing to sign up as proponents of the ToE, that there were 'scientists' regardless of name or gender willing to sign up to ID.

A comical way of proving their point, but pretty illustrative.

Regardless, Rusra02's claim is accurate...
There are millions of thinking people, including scientists, who reject the ToE. But if the criteria is adjusted to look at the percentage of credentialed people within the relevant sciences who reject ToE, and support ID, then it's a vastly different story.

The part I'm struggling with is why this claim would be in any way convincing. The same language structure could be used to support almost any theory which even the smallest number of people within a field subscribe to.

Let's see...
Millions of people, including educators, believe that you should force children who show left-handed inclinations to write right-handed.

What should I extrapolate from that sentence? That there is substantial support or this? That's it's healthy? That's it's supported by evidence? Nup. None of the above. But it's still an accurate statement.

 

[Skwim]

Yeah, I mentioned this one in the Texas Textbooks thread, and got exactly zero response.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3542169-post50.html

In simple terms, scientists with proven credentials found ID claims of having largescale scientific support equal parts laughable and disingenuous, and so decided to respond by showing there were more credential scientists called Steve willing to sign up as proponents of the ToE, that there were 'scientists' regardless of name or gender willing to sign up to ID.

A comical way of proving their point, but pretty illustrative.

Regardless, Rusra02's claim is accurate...
There are millions of thinking people, including scientists, who reject the ToE. But if the criteria is adjusted to look at the percentage of credentialed people within the relevant sciences who reject ToE, and support ID, then it's a vastly different story.

The part I'm struggling with is why this claim would be in any way convincing. The same language structure could be used to support almost any theory which even the smallest number of people within a field subscribe to.

Let's see...
Millions of people, including educators, believe that you should force children who show left-handed inclinations to write right-handed.

What should I extrapolate from that sentence? That there is substantial support or this? That's it's healthy? That's it's supported by evidence? Nup. None of the above. But it's still an accurate statement.

Rusra02's remark is not untypical of those who don't consider the import of what they say. It sounds good, therefore it' has to be meaningful.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Rusra02's remark is not untypical of those who don't consider the import of what they say. It sounds good, therefore it' has to be meaningful.

That's the more charitable way of looking at it.

 

[johnhanks]

I disagree with your analogy... The ToE claims to know how life developed but cannot explain its origins.

A language scholar may accurately claim to know how English developed from Chaucer to Dickens, but that claim is not undermined if (s)he can't explain how Indo-European languages originated in the first place. Equally, our understanding of how the gene pools of populations change over time to give rise to populations reproductively isolated from the ancestral type is not undermined if we can't (yet) fully describe the origin of the first cells.

The Bible, however, does explain both origin and process. (Psalm 36:9, Genesis 1)

You have a very generous interpretation of the word "explain". Have I explained to a child how a cake is made if I say "The baker made it"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No one is claiming electricity evolved into a computer. But evolutionists claim that simple life forms changed into more complex forms. So, to many persons, how so-called simple life began is very relevant to whether the ToE is true, or as millions believe, is not true.

"If you can't say where electrons came from, then we can't trust Ohm's Law!"

"If you aren't an expert in agriculture, you can't know anything about nutrition!"

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"If you can't say where electrons came from, then we can't trust Ohm's Law!"

"If you aren't an expert in agriculture, you can't know anything about nutrition!"

C'mon, now, you can think of more interesting examples. Like...erm...if you don't know the Karma Sutra by rote, you're not fit to raise children.