On Evolution & Creation

[Audie]

oh oh oh I love cats.

Dragon tiger phoenix

 

[Audie]

James Tour, a prominent chemist, publicly expresses skepticism regarding the idea that species directly evolve into entirely new species, often arguing that the complexity of life and the mechanisms of evolution are not fully understood, particularly when it comes to the origin of life, and that the scientific evidence does not definitively support the idea of large-scale evolutionary leaps between distinct species.

There is over 1,000 Scientists that signed a paper..

That’s humbug, but more to the point,
not one of them has one fact contrary to
ToE.
So those few scientist's who actually do
reject evolution are simply dishonest. Like
tobacco scientists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

James Tour, a prominent chemist, publicly expresses skepticism regarding the idea that species directly evolve into entirely new species,

So. He's a chemist, not a biologist and being skeptical tells us about him and nothing about the science. Scientists are a skeptical group requiring evidence and reason to convince them. Being an expert in one science does not make an expert in all science. Odd that a prominent biologist of comparable expertise hasn't been found to promote Tour's message.

often arguing that the complexity of life and the mechanisms of evolution are not fully understood,

I don't know that anyone is arguing that any science is fully understood. They wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But we do have a massive body of knowledge and evidence on the subject and it all points to species evolving. Funny that the rejection of science is always based on some random opinion or ideology and never against the evidence.

If things were fully understood, we would not need science.

particularly when it comes to the origin of life,

That is a different subject from evolution. In my experience, and I that of many others that are more informed, creation supporters often wrongly conflate origins and evolution. Oddly, Tour, as a chemist, could hold a better position in a rational discussion of origins.

and that the scientific evidence does not definitively support the idea of large-scale evolutionary leaps between distinct species.

But the evidence does support speciation and evolution. That is the problem that has gotten ideologists so in a funk.

There is over 1,000 Scientists that signed a paper..

That's old news. The list was compiled in 2001. There are millions of scientists in the US alone. If it were only a million, that list would represent only 0.1% of them. Not whelming, let alone overwhelming. And again, being skeptical of a theory is not evidence invalidating the theory. Scientists are supposed to be skeptical. It doesn't really say anything but that a group of scientists are skeptical and have doubts. And of that before scratching the surface of the chicanery employed to get people on that list.

It is an empty weapon employed to manipulate those ignorant of science and already inclined to reject the science primarily on ideological grounds and not on any evidence or awareness and understanding of any evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That’s humbug, but more to the point,
not one of them has one fact contrary to
ToE.
So those few scientist's who actually do
reject evolution are simply dishonest. Like
tobacco scientists.

Or tricked into signing the list. Interesting how those that claim the moral high ground must soil themselves to hang on to it.

 

[metis]

Oh, I believe in evolution just not your brand of evolution.
Your brand of evolution requires life to begin to exist from non-life.

That is one hypothesis within the ToE, thus it is not accepted as a gimmee by us.