Putting the JW Stand on Evolution into Perspective

[Parsimony]

Of course, what you are claiming is contrary to known facts concerning impenetrable boundaries between types of animals and plants. "A number of scientists have therefore concluded that the evidence for evolution is too weak and contradictory to prove that life evolved. Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin’s Enigma: “The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth.”

On the other hand, the fossil record closely matches the general order of the appearance of living forms found in the Bible book of Genesis. Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments: “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.” ( g04 6/22)

Why are you citing the statements of an aerospace engineer and a physical chemist as if they were authorities on abiogenesis and evolutionary biology? It's not in their field of expertise. You might as well ask a medical doctor about their opinion on archaeology.

 

[dust1n]

Of course, what you are claiming is contrary to known facts concerning impenetrable boundaries between types of animals and plants. "A number of scientists have therefore concluded that the evidence for evolution is too weak and contradictory to prove that life evolved.

Nice and vague claim.

Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin’s Enigma: “The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional.

That's stupid. He's basically concluding that you could look at basically any different "type" of life first appearance in all of history and say, "That thing didn't have parents. It magically appeared here fully formed complete with fully functional organs."

It was also be a contradictory opinion from the other scientist you quote.

The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth.”

I guess if I was that naive, I'd find that deduction to be inescapable as well.

On the other hand, the fossil record closely matches the general order of the appearance of living forms found in the Bible book of Genesis. Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments: “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.” ( g04 6/22)

I'd love to see this guy's research.

 

[dust1n]

Also, protozoa don't have organs.

It's a nice try though, Luther D. Sutherland.

 

[gnostic]

Of course, what you are claiming is contrary to known facts concerning impenetrable boundaries between types of animals and plants. "A number of scientists have therefore concluded that the evidence for evolution is too weak and contradictory to prove that life evolved.

Sources, please.

Who are these scientists, who made these claims? And what are their own qualifications?

Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin’s Enigma: “The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth.”

You do realise that "aerospace engineer" are not expert in "biology", nor of "evolutionary mechanisms" (like gene flow, genetic drift, mutation or natural selection), don't you?

Would you get expert opinion about neurosurgery from a plumber?

 

[McBell]

Would you get expert opinion about neurosurgery from a plumber?

If the plumber is the only one who will tell him what he wants to hear....

 

[gnostic]

If the plumber is the only one who will tell him what he wants to hear....

That would sound about right.

I can see it now...the plumber is gonna cut into his head with a hacksaw, and use his wrench and other tools to explore his brain. And then decide his brain need replacing...so he began his work with yakking out the brain, and fit him with pipes, tubes and hoses, and fit a tap where his opening are.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

... "A number of scientists have therefore concluded that the evidence for evolution is too weak and contradictory to prove that life evolved.....

How many of these are biologists?

 

[rusra02]

Why are you citing the statements of an aerospace engineer and a physical chemist as if they were authorities on abiogenesis and evolutionary biology? It's not in their field of expertise. You might as well ask a medical doctor about their opinion on archaeology.

They are scientists who have examined the evidence for themselves and reached the conclusions cited concerning macro evolution. Biologists have made similar statements.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Biologists have made similar statements.

Show me who.

 

[rusra02]

Show me who.

To name a few:
Dr. Davey Loos
Wolf-Ekkehard-Lonnig
Michael Behe
Paula Kincheloe

 

[Skwim]

To name a few:
Dr. Davey Loos

This idiot biolochemist (not biologist) thinks that evolution still has to do with origins. Just take a look at THIS scripted nonsense.

Wolf-Ekkehard-Lonnig

Another freak of creationist nature. Here's just one of many critiques of his silliness.

Michael Behe

No need to even bother with this well-known fruit cake.

Paula Kincheloe

Paula Kincheloe:

"I have personally done this and have concluded that the Bible’s account of creation is accurate and does not conflict with true science."
source​

Either she is delusional or has no idea what true science says about speciation.



In any case, your argument by authority still fails miserably. The Project Steve figure is currently 1,368. That's 1,368 scientists named Steve who agree with the statement . . .

"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​

 

[SkepticThinker]

This makes sense. Honestly, I really don't get why some theists/creationists have such a hard time believing that maybe evolution was God's chosen method of diversifying life. It's like either "God did it in this extremely specific way" or else no God was involved at all, when I don't see why any theist couldn't look at evolution and say "God did it this way, simply by utilising the biological functions of nature, and the reason scientists cannot see inherent design is because there really is no difference between God's design and nature". Of course, that's not what I believe, but I don't see why there are so many creationists who don't.

I say the same thing all the time. I don't get it.

 

[Parsimony]

They are scientists who have examined the evidence for themselves and reached the conclusions cited concerning macro evolution. Biologists have made similar statements.

Doesn't make their conclusions authoritative. That aerospace engineer's statement doesn't even contradict the concept of evolutionary common descent. Might I also ask whether or not the majority of biologists who reject evolution are creationists? If so, that wouldn't exactly make them bias-free. Scientists who are theistic evolutionists should be fairly free of bias about this particular matter, since they could comfortably accommodate either creationism or evolution (i.e. they would have no motivation to disprove the Bible). They would have nothing to "lose" by evolution being wrong.

 

[JayJayDee]

This idiot biolochemist (not biologist) thinks that evolution still has to do with origins. Just take a look at THIS scripted nonsense.

Another freak of creationist nature. Here's just one of many critiques of his silliness.

No need to even bother with this well-known fruit cake.


Paula Kincheloe:

"I have personally done this and have concluded that the Bible’s account of creation is accurate and does not conflict with true science."
source​

Either she is delusional or has no idea what true science says about speciation.



In any case, your argument by authority still fails miserably.

May I just quote some of your words back to you?

What do you see in these descriptors used to describe the work and opinion of accredited scientists who disagree with your view....

"Idiot biochemist...scripted nonsense...freak of creationist nature....critiques of his silliness...well known fruitcake...delusional....no idea what science says about speciation...your argument by authority still fails miserably....
Seriously mate....this is how you prove that evolution is fact?

Why do so many staunch evolution supporters have to resort to this kind of derogatory language to prove their point? It just makes you sound desperate. "You must believe what we tell you or you are just"....all of those descriptors used above. That is rather a pathetic stance to take, don't you think?

The Project Steve figure is currently 1,368. That's 1,368 scientists named Steve who agree with the statement . . .

"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​

​

Surely the scientists who support creation and intelligent design have as much credibility as far as their credentials are concerned as the evolutionist do? They just have a different way of interpreting the evidence......whose to say they are wrong and you are right? Both have opinions...none have hard facts.

Children should not be forced to believe in one or the other....they should be given both options and given a choice to believe whichever conforms to their own individual sensibilities. What awful thing happens if they choose creation?

 

[JayJayDee]

I say the same thing all the time. I don't get it.

Well, I just watched this documentary and it was refreshing to have very little dialogue with constant reference to evolution as the astounding force behind the brilliant design in nature. I find that very annoying actually.

This awesome piece of photographic genius allows you to appreciate nature without the dialogue. Anyone who can watch this and attribute the wonders of the natural world to blind evolutionary forces, is blind themselves.

Design requires a designer. When is that not true in every human experience?

 

[Skwim]

May I just quote some of your words back to you?

What do you see in these descriptors used to describe the work and opinion of accredited scientists who disagree with your view....

"Idiot biochemist...scripted nonsense...freak of creationist nature....critiques of his silliness...well known fruitcake...delusional....no idea what science says about speciation...your argument by authority still fails miserably....
Seriously mate....this is how you prove that evolution is fact?

Of course not. Evolution doesn't need any defense, just explanation from time to time. Some people simply fail to get it. And in this case, it helps to put into perspective those who are supposedly educated, but remain in the clutches of religious need, lest their ignorance infect others. This is why descriptions such as ,"Idiot biochemist...scripted nonsense...freak of creationist nature....critiques of his silliness...well known fruitcake...delusional, etc. erupt from time to time.

Why do so many staunch evolution supporters have to resort to this kind of derogatory language to prove their point? It just makes you sound desperate. "You must believe what we tell you or you are just"....all of those descriptors used above. That is rather a pathetic stance to take, don't you think?

And it isn't to your credit at all that you knowingly mis-characterize our objective. But then I don't think any of "us" are giving you credit for much of anything anyway.

Children should not be forced to believe in one or the other....they should be given both options and given a choice to believe whichever conforms to their own individual sensibilities. What awful thing happens if they choose creation?

Ah, you mean. . . .

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, I just watched this documentary and it was refreshing to have very little dialogue with constant reference to evolution as the astounding force behind the brilliant design in nature. I find that very annoying actually.

This awesome piece of photographic genius allows you to appreciate nature without the dialogue. Anyone who can watch this and attribute the wonders of the natural world to blind evolutionary forces, is blind themselves.

Design requires a designer. When is that not true in every human experience?

Thanks for sharing your argument from incredulity with me. It doesn't change facts though.
What I find annoying is people who fight evidence tooth and nail to defend their religious belief, which contradict said evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

May I just quote some of your words back to you?

What do you see in these descriptors used to describe the work and opinion of accredited scientists who disagree with your view....

"Idiot biochemist...scripted nonsense...freak of creationist nature....critiques of his silliness...well known fruitcake...delusional....no idea what science says about speciation...your argument by authority still fails miserably....
Seriously mate....this is how you prove that evolution is fact?

Why do so many staunch evolution supporters have to resort to this kind of derogatory language to prove their point? It just makes you sound desperate. "You must believe what we tell you or you are just"....all of those descriptors used above. That is rather a pathetic stance to take, don't you think?

​

Surely the scientists who support creation and intelligent design have as much credibility as far as their credentials are concerned as the evolutionist do? They just have a different way of interpreting the evidence......whose to say they are wrong and you are right? Both have opinions...none have hard facts.

Children should not be forced to believe in one or the other....they should be given both options and given a choice to believe whichever conforms to their own individual sensibilities. What awful thing happens if they choose creation?

A science classroom is for science. Places of worship are for religious beliefs.

 

[JayJayDee]

Of course not. Evolution doesn't need any defense, just explanation from time to time. Some people simply fail to get it. And in this case, it helps to put into perspective those who are supposedly educated, but remain in the clutches of religious need, lest their ignorance infect others. This is why descriptions such as ,"Idiot biochemist...scripted nonsense...freak of creationist nature....critiques of his silliness...well known fruitcake...delusional, etc. erupt from time to time.

Funny how they seem to erupt mainly from those poorly educated in the field that they are supporting. The ones resorting to the use of such derogatory terms are the ones who hang off the words of their science gurus but produce nothing much in the way of evidence. These teachers could not possibly be wrong! How dare anyone suggest such a thing!
Pretending that speculation is fact is dishonest. Teaching it to children is even more dishonest.
We teach our own children and allow them to make up their own minds.

And it isn't to your credit at all that you knowingly mis-characterize our objective. But then I don't think any of "us" are giving you credit for much of anything anyway.

More derision?...OK, looks like you can't defend your beliefs without it. How do I mischaracterise your objective.

Look at what you posted below......This is mischaracterization......It's all you know how to do apparently.

Ah, you mean. . . .

This is a total misrepresentation of what accepting an intelligent designer means and you know it.

 

[JayJayDee]

Thanks for sharing your argument from incredulity with me. It doesn't change facts though.
What I find annoying is people who fight evidence tooth and nail to defend their religious belief, which contradict said evidence.

What "evidence" are we talking about here? I have seen no conclusive evidence from science that makes my belief in a an intelligent Creator go away.

When I have examined the so called "evidence", all I see are the findings of men who have done a lot of speculation and educated guessing in order to reach their pre-conceived conclusions.

Please provide "evidence" where the language does not involve phrases such as "might have"...."could have"...."we believe that"...."the evidence suggests that"...and we might have something to talk about. This is not the language of facts...it is pure supposition based on biased interpretation of their specimens.

I wouldn't mind so much if the evidence was even remotely convincing....but it isn't to those who aren't dazzled by the language. If you have to rely on bias to furnish your proof, then you have no truth....just guesses about what "might have" happened all those millions of years ago.