Some questions about evolution.

[Alceste]

What you call "creationists" are scientists who have examined the evidence for themselves and decided the evidence does not support evolution. As to published research, there are great numbers of well-researched papers showing the weaknesses of the ToE. But again, you knew that already, didn't you?

No, I did not know that, because in all the years I've been arguing with creationists on RF, not a single one of them has produced peer-reviewed research published in an established science journal that "shows the weaknesses of the ToE". Think about that for a minute: years of discussion. Dozens of creationists. All of them insisting published research exists that calls evolution into question. NOT ONE has been able to produce one single paper.

You've been TOLD this creationist research exists, and you believed it, but you never looked it up, did you? You don't intend to look it up either, from the looks of things.

 

[fantome profane]

Thank you. It's not everyday that a creationist like yourself says something nice to me.

:drool:Mmm, that sure is some tasty looking bait right there.:eat:


But still I think I will pass on it today.

 

[Tiberius]

I know of one that was dragged out in another thread before this one. While he was knowledgeable his assertions were refuted but sadly he met your criteria below....

There was someone able to make a valid, biologically sound argument against evolution that did not have any religious basis whatsoever?

You got a link? I've been waiting YEARS for something like that!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

There was someone able to make a valid, biologically sound argument against evolution that did not have any religious basis whatsoever?

You got a link? I've been waiting YEARS for something like that!

Naa, What I was saying was there was a member here who posted a link to a biologist (botanist) that wrote against Evolution...."BUT" he was doing so with religious bias.

Here's the link(s)
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...t-does-fossil-record-say-147.html#post2359355

NATURAL SELECTION

I think this is the best creationist got. Even though the link above, the argument has so. so many holes in it.....:thud:

 

[camanintx]

pc pp. 9-10 pars. 3-4​

​

Pertinent is the following quote from

g87 7/22 p. 10 ​

Are you ever going to provide proper references to back up your quotes?

 

[Alceste]

Are you ever going to provide proper references to back up your quotes?

Found one: Jehovah`s Witness: moral life, protein molecule, atoms and molecules

Edit: Found the other: http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-9-societys-view-of-science-and.html

 

[fantome profane]

g87

You sank my battleship!

 

[Tiberius]

Naa, What I was saying was there was a member here who posted a link to a biologist (botanist) that wrote against Evolution...."BUT" he was doing so with religious bias.

Here's the link(s)
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...t-does-fossil-record-say-147.html#post2359355

NATURAL SELECTION

I think this is the best creationist got. Even though the link above, the argument has so. so many holes in it.....:thud:

So he didn't meet my objectives. [ralph]You're deceptive![/ralph]

You raised my hopes and dashed them quite expertly!

 

[rusra02]

Rusra02,

I would love to see one example of a secular scientist, who was a former evolutionist, who examined scientific evidence and decided that it didn't support evolution, and furthermore, became convinced of young-earth creationism, before becoming Christians. Almost every example of a creationist that I have seen, were all Christians prior to examining any arguments against evolution and for creationism, especially young-earth creationism.

First, I am not a YEC, and don't believe the Bible teaches the earth was created in 6 24-hour days about 10,000 years ago. To the contrary, the Bible supports the fact the universe had a beginning and the earth was created prior to it's preparation for life. (Genesis 1:1)
As to a scientist who examined the evidence, Antony Flew comes to mind. An avowed atheist for some 50 years, he changed his mind after studying DNA. When questioned about the effect his change may have on other scientists view of him, he reportedly said "That’s too bad. My whole life has been guided by the principle . . . [to] follow the evidence, wherever it leads.” Associated Presss Newswires, "Famous Atheist Now Believes in God" by Richard N. Ostling, 12/9/04.

Another is Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig.

(Now let the character assassinations begin)

 

[rusra02]

It doesn't matter whether you agree that ToE is backed by scientific evidence. It is. You can only accept or reject this fact, just as you can reject the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. The window for reasonable people to agree or disagree with the claim that ToE is backed by scientific evidence passed over a hundred years ago.

There are millions of reasonable people who would disagree with you. They believe the scientific evidence (not ToE propaganda) does support the fact that life was created by God. Was it FDR that said "Saying something is a fact over and over doesn't make it one"?

 

[rusra02]

No, I did not know that, because in all the years I've been arguing with creationists on RF, not a single one of them has produced peer-reviewed research published in an established science journal that "shows the weaknesses of the ToE". Think about that for a minute: years of discussion. Dozens of creationists. All of them insisting published research exists that calls evolution into question. NOT ONE has been able to produce one single paper.

You've been TOLD this creationist research exists, and you believed it, but you never looked it up, did you? You don't intend to look it up either, from the looks of things.

Oh, now it is not just a well-research paper you want, it is a peer-reviewed writeup published in an established science journal. You mean the journals controlled by the ToE apologists? The ones who claim anyone who believes in creation is either stupid, ignorant, or insane? The internet is awash in well-researched papers refuting the ToE, but you know that already, don't you? Try here, for example. But I bet you could find a lot more if you tried.

 

[rusra02]

There was someone able to make a valid, biologically sound argument against evolution that did not have any religious basis whatsoever?

You got a link? I've been waiting YEARS for something like that!

Let's see now. You want someone who believes that a Creator made life and created all things, and has explained their reasons for such belief, but who has no religious feelings or thoughts? Are you kidding me? Or did I misunderstand you?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Would you be so kind as to respond to the post I made here: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...119814-some-questions-about-evolution-22.html (post #213) please?
I know it is easy to lose track of things in these treads, but I think the point is important.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Oh, now it is not just a well-research paper you want, it is a peer-reviewed writeup published in an established science journal. You mean the journals controlled by the ToE apologists? The ones who claim anyone who believes in creation is either stupid, ignorant, or insane? The internet is awash in well-researched papers refuting the ToE, but you know that already, don't you? Try here, for example. But I bet you could find a lot more if you tried.

That link doesn't go anywhere...

 

[tumbleweed41]

Oh, now it is not just a well-research paper you want, it is a peer-reviewed writeup published in an established science journal. You mean the journals controlled by the ToE apologists? The ones who claim anyone who believes in creation is either stupid, ignorant, or insane? The internet is awash in well-researched papers refuting the ToE, but you know that already, don't you? Try here, for example. But I bet you could find a lot more if you tried.

Fixed your link.

It's a paper by Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, the German botanist and ID proponent featured in "Expelled" who cried to Ben Stien how unfair it is that his ideas cannot get any exposure in prominent scientific journals.

 

[Alceste]

There are millions of reasonable people who would disagree with you. They believe the scientific evidence (not ToE propaganda) does support the fact that life was created by God. Was it FDR that said "Saying something is a fact over and over doesn't make it one"?

If they disagree with the theory of evolution they are unreasonable by definition, just as if they disagreed with the theory of gravity or heliocentrism. It's made a fact by virtue of being factual. Nothing to do with what I say.

Seems you are the one trying to amend reality with repetition.

 

[Alceste]

Oh, now it is not just a well-research paper you want, it is a peer-reviewed writeup published in an established science journal. You mean the journals controlled by the ToE apologists? The ones who claim anyone who believes in creation is either stupid, ignorant, or insane? The internet is awash in well-researched papers refuting the ToE, but you know that already, don't you? Try here, for example. But I bet you could find a lot more if you tried.

I don't share your rather irrational belief that all the reputable science journals in the entire world are conspiring to suppress valid research that disagrees with previously published research. If you read any of them, you'd see that's not the case. Debate and disagreement is alive and well in science: progress depends on it. If creationists ever get around to doing science they'll discover that for themselves. Asking if I can go find unscientific creationist articles on the internet is like asking if I can find horse **** in a stable. I have standards.

 

[Tristesse]

Let's see now. You want someone who believes that a Creator made life and created all things, and has explained their reasons for such belief, but who has no religious feelings or thoughts? Are you kidding me? Or did I misunderstand you?

If you read through his post, rusra, nowhere does he mention a creator. So, in short, you did misunderstand him.

 

[rusra02]

If they disagree with the theory of evolution they are unreasonable by definition, just as if they disagreed with the theory of gravity or heliocentrism. It's made a fact by virtue of being factual. Nothing to do with what I say.

Seems you are the one trying to amend reality with repetition.

"If they disagree with the theory of evolution they are unreasonable by definition."
No, they are people who are willing to investigate the facts for themselves, rather than accept the ToE propaganda without question.

 

[rusra02]

Fixed your link.

It's a paper by Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, the German botanist and ID proponent featured in "Expelled" who cried to Ben Stien how unfair it is that his ideas cannot get any exposure in prominent scientific journals.

My point exactly. Many of the ToE adherents would like to quash all questioning of their theory. Ben Stein's movie exposed this repressive and wide-spread attitude. Opposing views to the ToE are routinely suppressed, ridiculed, and otherwise punished.
But we digress. You asked for a scientific paper and this is but one of many readily available online.