Why do most scientists accept evolution.

[Draka]

I thought it was obvious. Evolution isn't science. Scientists don't actually believe nor endorse evolution. Anything put out by scientists goes through media channels and is actually altered by the media (who we all know is collectively owned my the Illuminati). This is a devious and dastardly plan to slowly get everyone to stop believing in god, which will make them easier to control and get to eventually believe in what the Illuminati want them to believe. Putty in their hands. A slow and painstaking process, but in play nevertheless. This also perfectly explains the disposal/firing of those scientists and educators who step out of line and manage to get their message out anyway (let's not even bring up what you don't see - let's not forget that someone in the Illuminati controlled media let the message get out - you don't want to imagine what happens to those poor folks :cover: )

 

[Skwim]

I thought it was obvious. Evolution isn't science. Scientists don't actually believe nor endorse evolution. Anything put out by scientists goes through media channels and is actually altered by the media (who we all know is collectively owned my the Illuminati). This is a devious and dastardly plan to slowly get everyone to stop believing in god, which will make them easier to control and get to eventually believe in what the Illuminati want them to believe. Putty in their hands. A slow and painstaking process, but in play nevertheless. This also perfectly explains the disposal/firing of those scientists and educators who step out of line and manage to get their message out anyway (let's not even bring up what you don't see - let's not forget that someone in the Illuminati controlled media let the message get out - you don't want to imagine what happens to those poor folks :cover: )

​

 

[Draka]

​

:curtsy::takeabow: Thank you! Thank you very much! I tried so very hard! I'd like to thank so many people who have brought so much inspiration to this forum in the form of so many ridiculous posts, however to do so would be against forum rules. I'm sure the ones who are not already gone know who they are, and to the ones who are gone...we miss you, we love you, you brought us so much entertainment. :clap

 

[rusra02]

If a science teacher questioned gravity, the the uncertainty principle, the laws of thermodynamics, etc...etc.... and instead told his many students (while being paid with taxpayer dollars) that his personal theory of an unprovable magical man in the sky actually controls gravity, the positions of electrons, and the constancy of matter and energy is really a better ideology to obey, ....unquestioningly.....and without any proof what-so-ever.
Then yeah....those "teachers" should get fired.

If a scientist was hired by a private Christian creationist school, and he started teaching evolution, the big bang theory, and the approximate age of the Earth and the universe......how long do you think he would remain employed?


So, as Gjallarhorn says.....What's you point?

I thought science and scientists are to raise questions and form theories based on observations they make. DNA has the capacity to store far more information than any storage device made by skilled technicians. Yet we are asked to believe (by evolutionists) this engineering feat occurred without an intelligent Creator. How scientific is it to deny observable facts or draw reasonable inferences from them? Equating the ToE to scientifically provable facts is a common ploy or tactic of evolutionists. Another is to claim any explanation for life other than the ToE is "unscientific", and therefore, anyone who even raises the possibility of other explanations deserves to be expelled from any discourse on the subject. I call that propaganda, not science.

 

[rusra02]

Ostracised by whom? And why?

Yet again you are taking refuge in this comforting (for you) picture of a fearful scientific community cowering under the cosh of Evolutionary Big Brother; though who exactly these BB figures are, and for what motives they enforce evolutionary orthodoxy in such a draconian manner, you never seem able to explain.

I have numerous times mentioned the documentary "Expelled" and other easily accessed sources, such as the Internet, where such information (about individuals who question evolution and what happens to them) can be located. I am persuaded you know that already.

 

[rusra02]

Questioned evolution? Or offered a different 'theory'?
Do you have any sources for this? I'd be interested.

I refer you to any Internet search engine, such as Google.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Questioned evolution? Or offered a different 'theory'?
Do you have any sources for this? I'd be interested.

Rusra02, last time you mentioned your easily accessible sources, I asked the questions (above).
I repeat them now.

 

[LuisDantas]

I thought science and scientists are to raise questions and form theories based on observations they make.

That is true.

DNA has the capacity to store far more information than any storage device made by skilled technicians.

That is a lie.

(...) this gives us an actual information content of 0.4 billion bits or 50 Mbytes assuming the best case scenario that all DNA is coding or about 24 Mbytes if all the DNA is non-coding.

Source: Information content of DNA - The Panda's Thumb

50 Mbytes is a lot of information, but it is also most definitely within the parameters you set. In fact, not too many pieces of computer hardware fail to have many times that much information capacity these days.

Yet we are asked to believe (by evolutionists) this engineering feat occurred without an intelligent Creator.

You may believe in an intelligent creator if you want. Nothing in biology implies that there is none.

It is just not true that biological evolution hints at one in any clear way.

How scientific is it to deny observable facts

A lot. Which is why anti-evolutionism, often confusingly called "Creationism", is such a shame.

or draw reasonable inferences from them? Equating the ToE to scientifically provable facts is a common ploy or tactic of evolutionists.

If you want to call being rational and reasonable a "ploy or tactic" than that is certainly true.

Another is to claim any explanation for life other than the ToE is "unscientific", and therefore, anyone who even raises the possibility of other explanations deserves to be expelled from any discourse on the subject. I call that propaganda, not science.

You call many things by many surprising names. All the same, you will need to show some alternative explanation with a lot of evidence behind it if you truly hope to shake the ToE, because the ToE has been showing remarkable evidence and predictable power for well over a century now. It is just about as proven as any scientific finding can ever be found to be.

 

[johnhanks]

I have numerous times mentioned the documentary "Expelled" ...

Yes, and have had it dismissed with contempt every time, for reasons well summarised here.

... and other easily accessed sources, such as the Internet, where such information (about individuals who question evolution and what happens to them) can be located. I am persuaded you know that already.

What I know, rusra, is that I've asked you many times who exactly are the sinister enforcers of evolutionary orthodoxy, and what is their motive, and have yet to receive a straight answer. Don't just fob us off with "Google it" - tell us yourself.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I thought science and scientists are to raise questions and form theories based on observations they make. DNA has the capacity to store far more information than any storage device made by skilled technicians. Yet we are asked to believe (by evolutionists) this engineering feat occurred without an intelligent Creator. How scientific is it to deny observable facts or draw reasonable inferences from them? Equating the ToE to scientifically provable facts is a common ploy or tactic of evolutionists. Another is to claim any explanation for life other than the ToE is "unscientific", and therefore, anyone who even raises the possibility of other explanations deserves to be expelled from any discourse on the subject. I call that propaganda, not science.

That's still not what evolution claims. From what little I know evolution speaks of the diversity that DNA can produce not who created it.

 

[rusra02]

That is true.



That is a lie.



Source: Information content of DNA - The Panda's Thumb

50 Mbytes is a lot of information, but it is also most definitely within the parameters you set. In fact, not too many pieces of computer hardware fail to have many times that much information capacity these days.




You may believe in an intelligent creator if you want. Nothing in biology implies that there is none.

It is just not true that biological evolution hints at one in any clear way.




A lot. Which is why anti-evolutionism, often confusingly called "Creationism", is such a shame.




If you want to call being rational and reasonable a "ploy or tactic" than that is certainly true.




You call many things by many surprising names. All the same, you will need to show some alternative explanation with a lot of evidence behind it if you truly hope to shake the ToE, because the ToE has been showing remarkable evidence and predictable power for well over a century now. It is just about as proven as any scientific finding can ever be found to be.

You need to check your facts before boldly claiming something is a lie.
According to a professor of molecular biology and computer science: “One gram of DNA, which when dry would occupy a volume of approximately one cubic centimeter, can store as much information as approximately one trillion CDs [compact discs]." Can you name any storage device with greater capacity, gram for gram?
Similar is your assertion that evolution is backed by evidence. The opposite is true, IMO. Which may be why evolutionists seem to fear any scientific debate on the subject. I do not seek "to shake the ToE." Each person is free to examine the evidence for themselves and draw their own conclusions. However, many evolutionists seem to seek to stifle such searching. (Romans 1:18-22)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You need to check your facts before boldly claiming something is a lie.
According to a professor of molecular biology and computer science: “One gram of DNA, which when dry would occupy a volume of approximately one cubic centimeter, can store as much information as approximately one trillion CDs [compact discs]." Can you name any storage device with greater capacity, gram for gram?

Sure. A quantum many-body system prepared for quantum computing. Information has, since Shannon and Shannon & Weaver, become formalized mathematically in terms of entropy and possible states. It is completely irrelevant that one system is capable of "storing" more information than another. A roll of a die contains 6 possible configuration states. In information theory, that directly corresponds to the information possible for that system. Quantum systems are, in general, not well defined and require probabilistic functions to characterize their states. Which means they are vastly more capable of "storage" than any nucleic acid.

Similar is your assertion that evolution is backed by evidence. The opposite is true, IMO. Which may be why evolutionists seem to fear any scientific debate on the subject.

Which explains why Demski & Ruse edited a volume published by Cambridge University Press, in which evolution proponents and their religious opponents were given the opportunity to lay down their position via argument in a well-respected academic publishing company. That's sarcasm, in case you were wondering.

I do not seek "to shake the ToE." Each person is free to examine the evidence for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

Actually, they are quite literally not "free" to do so. Because the vast majority of research is attainable only through access to technical literature which, unless you belong to a university or lab, is difficult to obtain.

{quote]However, many evolutionists seem to seek to stifle such searching. (Romans 1:18-22)[/quote]

So you agree with this approach: "τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασιν νοούμενα καθορᾶται, ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογήτους"

Yet although this is basically physics, we have yet to reach Paul's interpretation.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

In the human genome there are around 1,800,000,000,000 daltons, (in total) weighing about 0.000000000000000002988954 grams which stores about 1.5 GB of data; though I do not currently have data on the most efficient weight:data ratio of artificial data storage mechanisms I would be more than willing to concede that DNA is likely far FAR more efficient a storage mechanism than anything we have yet devised, gram for gram, but that is not what you first said and your amendment substantively alters what you proposed.

The mass of DNA, proteins and other organic molecules is usually expressed in Daltons. A Dalton, also known as an atomic mass unit, is roughly the mass of a single proton or neutron. In relation to other units of mass, a Dalton is one-thousandth of a zeptogram, which is one-thousandth of an attogram, which is one-thousandth of a femtogram, which is one-thousandth of a picogram, which is one-thousandth of a nanogram, which is a billionth of a gram.
Mass DNA molecules

Every base pair in a DNA molecule contributes about 600 Daltons (1 Dalton = 1 atomic mass unit) to the molecular weight of a DNA molecule
Molecular Weight of DNA

human genome (contained in egg and sperm cells) consists of three billion DNA base pairs,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome

6×10^9 base pairs/diploid genome x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 1.5×10^9 bytes or 1.5 Gigabytes
How Much Information is Stored in the Human Genome? | Bitesize Bio​

It is true our current technological innovations have not yet reached the extremely high rates of efficiency present in the sub molecular encoding standard that is DNA as you have recognized. But then again, what of it? If you were to create an appropriate systematic way of decoding the molecular structure of a rock, it could present similar gram for gram data (because it would contain a similar number of daltons and thus sub molecular components - in fact given the need to model the distribution of those components, the rock might actually incorporate a higher degree of geospatial data), likewise, we may one day develop the ability to create and utilise atomic level data encapsulation and encoding. We are not there yet and it may well prove impractical for whatever reasons (energy use for example) however this would in no way whatsoever support the assertion of a designer... it is simply not relevant.

 

[johnhanks]

I do not seek "to shake the ToE." Each person is free to examine the evidence for themselves and draw their own conclusions. However, many evolutionists seem to seek to stifle such searching.

Yep, isn't it shameful that those lily-livered "evolutionists" at the UK's Natural History Museum are so determined to stifle debate about evolution they let people in to examine the evidence free, and for a small fee will send you an app about it for your iPad.
Of course, the academics on your side of the pond are just as bad, furtively hiding evolutionary evidence from public scrutiny in little hole-in-the-corner exhibits like this one. And it's not like any of them dare put the evidence in the public eye by publishing books on it, is it?

(Romans 1:18-22)

Are you under the impression this adds something to your argument?

 

[LuisDantas]

You need to check your facts before boldly claiming something is a lie.

I do. Don't we all?

Fortunately for my ego, that was not a mistake that I commited this one time, though.

That you decided to qualify your statement, making it far different, in no way changes the fact that the previous version was a bold, misleading lie.

According to a professor of molecular biology and computer science: “One gram of DNA, which when dry would occupy a volume of approximately one cubic centimeter, can store as much information as approximately one trillion CDs [compact discs]." Can you name any storage device with greater capacity, gram for gram?

Ah, but that is an entirely different matter. DNA is remarkably economical as an information storage tool. It also falls short in some respects, such as reliability of recovery (which is to a degree its strength, since that allows for mutations) and stability. It is certainly impressive, as are many other kinds of spontaneously-developed structures.

Does it surprise or impress you that it took considerably effort, time and ingenuity of biological beings to artificially build information technology of that specific level of capacity? I don't think it should. That is no more evidence of an intentional designer than the fact that humans are humbled by the weight and size of mountains. There are limitations to human capability, even when it appeals to technological development. But we have no reason to expect humans to have significant power over its environment in the first place. We just do what we do, while things such as random joinings of organic molecules and giant pools of cooling magma also do their own things, as unwilling and unintentionally as anything could happen.

Similar is your assertion that evolution is backed by evidence. The opposite is true, IMO. Which may be why evolutionists seem to fear any scientific debate on the subject. I do not seek "to shake the ToE." Each person is free to examine the evidence for themselves and draw their own conclusions. However, many evolutionists seem to seek to stifle such searching. (Romans 1:18-22)

I have heard such legends before. They remain unconvincing and quite often have a hard time hiding their fear and lack of honesty and information.

 

[rusra02]

In the human genome there are around 1,800,000,000,000 daltons, weighing about 0.000000000000000002988954 grams which stores about 1.5 GB of data; though I do not currently have data on the most efficient weight:data ratio of artificial data storage mechanisms I would be more than willing to concede that DNA is likely far FAR more efficient a storage mechanism than anything we have yet devised, gram for gram, but that is not what you first said and your amendment substantively alters what you proposed.

The mass of DNA, proteins and other organic molecules is usually expressed in Daltons. A Dalton, also known as an atomic mass unit, is roughly the mass of a single proton or neutron. In relation to other units of mass, a Dalton is one-thousandth of a zeptogram, which is one-thousandth of an attogram, which is one-thousandth of a femtogram, which is one-thousandth of a picogram, which is one-thousandth of a nanogram, which is a billionth of a gram.
Mass DNA molecules

Every base pair in a DNA molecule contributes about 600 Daltons (1 Dalton = 1 atomic mass unit) to the molecular weight of a DNA molecule
Molecular Weight of DNA

human genome (contained in egg and sperm cells) consists of three billion DNA base pairs,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome

6×10^9 base pairs/diploid genome x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 1.5×10^9 bytes or 1.5 Gigabytes
How Much Information is Stored in the Human Genome? | Bitesize Bio​

It is true our current technological innovations have not yet reached the extremely high rates of efficiency present in the sub molecular encoding standard that is DNA as you have recognized. But then again, what of it? If you were to create an appropriate systematic way of decoding the molecular structure of a rock, it could present similar gram for gram data (because it would contain a similar number of daltons and thus sub molecular components - in fact given the need to model the distribution of those components, the rock might actually incorporate a higher degree of geospatial data), likewise, we may one day develop the ability to create and utilise atomic level data encapsulation and encoding. We are not there yet and it may well prove impractical for whatever reasons (energy use for example) however this would in no way whatsoever support the assertion of a designer... it is simply not relevant.

Maybe the fact that DNA has far more efficient storage methods than anything designed to date by the most brilliant scientists is not relevant to you; it tells me, however, that a superior intelligence was necessary to design such an elegant and brilliant system. You argue that smart people MAY one day create something approximating the storage capacity of DNA but deny the need for an intelligent designer of that which exists now. How evolution blinds people to what is before their eyes! (Hebrews 3:4)

 

[InformedIgnorance]

And you ignore the point that the rock can be decoded in such a way to provide more data gram for gram.

I am aware of my ignorance. Unlike some others it seems.

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe the fact that DNA has far more efficient storage methods than anything designed to date by the most brilliant scientists is not relevant to you; it tells me, however, that a superior intelligence was necessary to design such an elegant and brilliant system.

Sorry, but all that says is that you are predisposed to reach that conclusion.

You argue that smart people MAY one day create something approximating the storage capacity of DNA but deny the need for an intelligent designer of that which exists now. How evolution blinds people to what is before their eyes! (Hebrews 3:4)

Evolutions is both well supported by and a strong motivator of the search for evidence of various kinds. So it hardly makes sense to complain that it "blinds" people, particularly while quoting scripture.

It is not the fault of those you so passionately seek to deny that you have such a hard time accepting that many things do in fact arise spontaneously and acquire remarkable properties on their own. DNA isn't even a very impressive example; it is in many senses quite obviously accidental in origin, to the point of breaking down of its own often.

You see a designer because that is what you want to perceive, and that a desire has taken hold of you to such a degree that your argumentation and quite possibly your analytical capabilities have suffered for it.

Just let go, man, and accept that not everything that happens happens for a reason.

 

[Draka]

That's right rusra, fight them.
[youtube]8C9zvqtpbAo[/youtube]

 

[rusra02]

Sorry, but all that says is that you are predisposed to reach that conclusion.




Evolutions is both well supported by and a strong motivator of the search for evidence of various kinds. So it hardly makes sense to complain that it "blinds" people, particularly while quoting scripture.

It is not the fault of those you so passionately seek to deny that you have such a hard time accepting that many things do in fact arise spontaneously and acquire remarkable properties on their own. DNA isn't even a very impressive example; it is in many senses quite obviously accidental in origin, to the point of breaking down of its own often.

You see a designer because that is what you want to perceive, and that a desire has taken hold of you to such a degree that your argumentation and quite possibly your analytical capabilities have suffered for it.

Just let go, man, and accept that not everything that happens happens for a reason.

Famed atheist Antony Flew changed his mind and expressed belief that some intelligence was involved in the creation of life. What convinced him? A study of DNA. Francis Crick, who helped discover DNA’s double-helix structure, also expressed belief an intelligent entity was involved in DNA. And claiming DNA is not "impressive" betrays a need to hide the truth. Fortunately, people not drunk on the ToE kool-aid can examine the evidence for themselves. I find it interesting how this seems to bother evolutionists.(Jeremiah 5:12)