Holes in Darwin's Theory?

[rusra02]

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

I wonder how many of those believe in evolution.

 

[rusra02]

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".

You asked for a list, and I told you where you could find it, although I knew you already know about these lists. I am persuaded you also know the names of scientists studying biology who reject evolution. Who is being disingenuous here? Anyone interested in the truth can find it.

 

[McBell]

You asked for a list, and I told you where you could find it, although I knew you already know about these lists. I am persuaded you also know the names of scientists studying biology who reject evolution. Who is being disingenuous here? Anyone interested in the truth can find it.

You claim said list is easy to find yet you are unable to present said list?

You made the claim.
You do the homework to support your claim.


I understand you are scared of presenting a list because you know it will be picked apart and reveal even more blatant dishonesty, but stop trying to shuffle the burden onto me when it is your claim.

 

[rusra02]

You claim said list is easy to find yet you are unable to present said list?

You made the claim.
You do the homework to support your claim.


I understand you are scared of presenting a list because you know it will be picked apart and reveal even more blatant dishonesty, but stop trying to shuffle the burden onto me when it is your claim.

So you admit that you want a list simply to pick it apart. I'm disappointed but hardly surprised. I think many evolutionist propagandists share that idea. "If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger." And attack they do. Little wonder so few scientists dare raise publicly their private doubts about the ToE.

 

[McBell]

So you admit that you want a list simply to pick it apart. I'm disappointed but hardly surprised. I think many evolutionist propagandists share that idea. "If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger." And attack they do. Little wonder so few scientists dare raise publicly their private doubts about the ToE.

So you admit you know your list would not stand up to scrutiny.
I am disappointed, but not the least bit surprised. I understand that most creationists are scared of the truth. "If you cannot support your claim, try shoveling bull ****." and shovel you do. Little wonder the only ones who buy your snake oil are choir members.


Interesting how you refuse to support you, claim and then try to put the blame for your total lack of support on me.
Your dishonesty knows no bounds.

 

[mycorrhiza]

So you admit that you want a list simply to pick it apart. I'm disappointed but hardly surprised. I think many evolutionist propagandists share that idea. "If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger." And attack they do. Little wonder so few scientists dare raise publicly their private doubts about the ToE.

The main problem with lists of scientists that don't accept evolution is that they often contain very few biologists.

He never said that he wanted to pick apart the list, just that it would get picked apart because there are no good lists of scientists that don't accept evolution, since 99,9% of all biologists and scientists in other relevant fields accept it.

If you believe that there is a good list providing us with many notable and respected biologists that disagree with evolution, then that's good, but it also doesn't prove anything at all other than that some people don't agree with evolution because of their religious views. If you want to provide evidence for creationism, then do so instead of giving us lists of scientists who don't agree with evolution. Where is the scientific alternative?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So you admit that you want a list simply to pick it apart. I'm disappointed but hardly surprised. I think many evolutionist propagandists share that idea. "If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger." And attack they do. Little wonder so few scientists dare raise publicly their private doubts about the ToE.

What message? And who are 'evolutionist propagadists'? And since when have scientists been scared to offer up dissenting opinions? Assuming they have enough scientific evidence not to get laughed out of a room, it is EXACTLY what most of them would like to do in their careers (ie. make breakthrough discoveries)

 

[Ouroboros]

"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!"

Yup. Or...

"You don't know quantum mechanics, therefore you can't build a table of wood."

"You don't know the particle/wave duality of light, so you can't take photos with a camera."

Here's a good one:

"You don't know how Internet came about, so you can't post on a forum."

The whole "you don't know where if came from therefore evolution is wrong" is a huge non-sequitor.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Yup. Or...

"You don't know quantum mechanics, therefore you can't build a table of wood."

"You don't know the particle/wave duality of light, so you can't take photos with a camera."

Here's a good one:

"You don't know how Internet came about, so you can't post on a forum."

The whole "you don't know where if came from therefore evolution is wrong" is a huge non-sequitor.

I'd be careful with these analogies though, because the same kinda retort is used when he mentions the scientist who don't believe in evolution and the response is "they aren't in a relevant field" while I can understand why in science this makes sense to a laymen...not really.

 

[rusra02]

What message? And who are 'evolutionist propagadists'? And since when have scientists been scared to offer up dissenting opinions? Assuming they have enough scientific evidence not to get laughed out of a room, it is EXACTLY what most of them would like to do in their careers (ie. make breakthrough discoveries)

The efforts of evolutionists to silence dissent have been documented in recent years and are available on the Internet to those interested in investigating the facts. Of course, the propagandists for the TOE will loudly deny this. but I think it is best to check the facts for oneself.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I wonder how many of those believe in evolution.

I'm sure you wonder about all sorts of irrelevant things, while missing salient points.

 

[metis]

What I have found when one checks out these lists is that they can often been misleading whereas any question about one aspect of evolution puts that person on a "doubt" or "deny" list. For example, if I say that I have some questions regarding the validity of random genetic drift (which I don't, btw), then I may end up on a "doubt" or "deny" list.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The efforts of evolutionists to silence dissent have been documented in recent years and are available on the Internet to those interested in investigating the facts. Of course, the propagandists for the TOE will loudly deny this. but I think it is best to check the facts for oneself.

When you do this (ie. source the entire internet as 'proof') you are singularly failing to support your argument at all. Any chance there are sites, articles, or links which have a good outline supporting what you think?

I googled (although working out what to enter as a search criteria is interesting) and got this...

Evolution Whoppers and Bloopers

It has absolute gems like this...

Comparative Anatomy (Homology)

You look like a monkey! While this is not completely true, there are some real similarities. You both have two arms, two legs, and one head. Obviously there are also many differences, but because of the resemblance, evolutionists usually say that either man evolved from the monkey or that both had a common ancestor. They also point out the similarity between the bones in your arms and those in flippers and in wings.

Similarities really can indicate family relationships. You probably resemble your father. But they can also indicate something completely different. In front of me as I write is a set of books on the shelves. All are almost identical. It would be possible to conclude that the thick one had evolved from the thin one. Actually the publisher designed a particular style that he is using for all the books which he puts in this series.

A common designer also explains some similarities that are difficult to explain by evolution. The ability to fly is found in birds, bats, insects, and some dinosaurs. Evolutionists ask us to believe that each evolved this ability separately. This not only seems impossible, but neither are evolutionary steps leading to flight found in the fossils.

Flying squirrels, and birds that can’t fly are used as examples of how flight may have evolved. They obviously had nothing to do with the evolution of flight, because both are alive today, rather than when flight was supposedly evolving.

Airplane designers don’t wait for Ford to make enough random mistakes on it’s cars to work up to an airplane. Intelligent designers use common design features for both. The fact that birds, bats, and bugs have have no evolutionary relationship, but do have common design features is evidence that they were all designed by the same creator.

Even with my rudimentary understanding of biology, I can see how full of crap this is. So clearly me googling to find this proof of conspiracy you speak of is not going to work.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

What I have found when one checks out these lists is that they can often been misleading whereas any question about one aspect of evolution puts that person on a "doubt" or "deny" list. For example, if I say that I have some questions regarding the validity of random genetic drift (which I don't, btw), then I may end up on a "doubt" or "deny" list.

Because people assume that facts don't change. That's the difference between science and hard core fundamentalist religious beliefs.

Science will change as evidence is presented, regardless if it wants too, it will be dragged kicking and screaming.

Fundamentalist beliefs in some cases don't have to...even when it plays a major part in their lives.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'd be careful with these analogies though, because the same kinda retort is used when he mentions the scientist who don't believe in evolution and the response is "they aren't in a relevant field" while I can understand why in science this makes sense to a laymen...not really.

I'm not sure what you mean.

The analogies aren't meant to point to having a scientist in a relevant field.

It's more a question of, do you have to know what a nail is made of to be able to use it? Do you have to know quantum mechanics to use a hammer? The answer is, no. Simply because the fields of study are different. Architecture and engineering are not made true or false based on any current knowledge about quantum mechanics. Just like evolution is about how life changes, not how it came about, while abiogenesis is about how life came about but not about how it then changes. Abiogenesis is not necessary to be known to established for evolution to be true. They are in that sense independent of each other, even if abiogenesis could be helpful to better understand evolution, still evolution is about the change of X, not the beginning of X. So I'm not talking about the scientists themselves. I'm talking about certain levels of independence between the fields of study. Just like knowing typography isn't a requirement to write a novel. Knowing how a Microsoft keyboard is designed isn't necessary to type a post in this forum. Knowing assembler isn't necessary to program in C#. Knowing the speed of light isn't necessary for a photographer to take beautiful pictures. And so on.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I'm not sure what you mean.

The analogies aren't meant to point to having a scientist in a relevant field.

It's more a question of, do you have to know what a nail is made of to be able to use it? Do you have to know quantum mechanics to use a hammer? The answer is, no. Simply because the fields of study are different. Architecture and engineering are not made true or false based on any current knowledge about quantum mechanics. Just like evolution is about how life changes, not how it came about, while abiogenesis is about how life came about but not about how it then changes. Abiogenesis is not necessary to be known to established for evolution to be true. They are in that sense independent of each other, even if abiogenesis could be helpful to better understand evolution, still evolution is about the change of X, not the beginning of X. So I'm not talking about the scientists themselves. I'm talking about certain levels of independence between the fields of study. Just like knowing typography isn't a requirement to write a novel. Knowing how a Microsoft keyboard is designed isn't necessary to type a post in this forum. Knowing assembler isn't necessary to program in C#. Knowing the speed of light isn't necessary for a photographer to take beautiful pictures. And so on.

What I mean is that you don't need to be a biologist to understand evolution and not agree with it lol.

 

[Ouroboros]

What I mean is that you don't need to be a biologist to understand evolution and not agree with it lol.

Yeah. You're absolutely right about that. It wasn't my intention to make it sound like that you had to, but rather exact the same thing. You don't have to know everything to be able to know something. We don't have to know abiogenesis to know evolution.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Yeah. You're absolutely right about that. It wasn't my intention to make it sound like that you had to, but rather exact the same thing. You don't have to know everything to be able to know something. We don't have to know abiogenesis to know evolution.

Yeah, I agree with that, I just can see how people can twist that though.

Sigh...there's so much in this world left to discovery and be discovered...it's rude to God to assume that the answers were already given years ago...in the past 200 years humanity has advanced in ways that it hadn't imagined. Yeah we've stepped back, but I don't see why we assume we have stopped progressing or ever will.

 

[Skwim]

You asked for a list, and I told you where you could find it, although I knew you already know about these lists. I am persuaded you also know the names of scientists studying biology who reject evolution. Who is being disingenuous here? Anyone interested in the truth can find it.

This has to be one of the wimpiest responses I've ever seen on RF. :slap:

That said, your posts are still fascinating in their own little way. Keep 'em coming.

 

[Ouroboros]

Sigh...there's so much in this world left to discovery and be discovered...

Amen to that.

it's rude to God to assume that the answers were already given years ago...in the past 200 years humanity has advanced in ways that it hadn't imagined.

Yes. That's one of the annoying things that I keep on coming back to about creationism. Why is it that one person 2,500-3,000 years ago wrote the correct version of the beginning of the universe based on a vision while than thousands and thousands of scientists discovering the real world through investigations for hundreds of years are wrong? It's like choosing one rotten raisin over a mountain of fresh fruit.

Yeah we've stepped back, but I don't see why we assume we have stopped progressing or ever will.

We haven't stopped. The next step in evolution is more of a quantum leap into biotech.