Why do some scientists reject evolution?

[Muslimman]

I do. You well know that 99.9% of biologists do accept the theory of evolution as a fact.

The primary logical fallacy here is known as argumentum ad verencundiam (appeal to authority). This faulty line of reasoning suggests that a certain idea or proposition should be accepted because all the “authorities” accept it. And, while it is true that legitimate authorities can be trusted to supply real evidence, it is not true that a person should accept a conclusion solely because “an authority” says that such is the case, without that authority giving proper evidence for the conclusion (Geisler and Brooks, pp. 98-99).Once in history, it was a "fact" that earth was flat.
The other one is "proof by assertion" which is used in brainwashing.

 

[McBell]

The primary logical fallacy here is known as argumentum ad verencundiam (appeal to authority). This faulty line of reasoning suggests that a certain idea or proposition should be accepted because all the “authorities” accept it. And, while it is true that legitimate authorities can be trusted to supply real evidence, it is not true that a person should accept a conclusion solely because “an authority” says that such is the case, without that authority giving proper evidence for the conclusion (Geisler and Brooks, pp. 98-99).
The other one is "proof by assertion" which is used in brainwashing.

So basically, the only thing creationists have for creation...

 

[Iti oj]

The primary logical fallacy here is known as argumentum ad verencundiam (appeal to authority). This faulty line of reasoning suggests that a certain idea or proposition should be accepted because all the “authorities” accept it. And, while it is true that legitimate authorities can be trusted to supply real evidence, it is not true that a person should accept a conclusion solely because “an authority” says that such is the case, without that authority giving proper evidence for the conclusion (Geisler and Brooks, pp. 98-99).Once in history, it was a "fact" that earth was flat.
The other one is "proof by assertion" which is used in brainwashing.

agreed, and thats not why i accept evolution. but a particular point is being made here about experts...and the point is false and showing experts refutes this argument,

also welcome to the forum

 

[Muslimman]

The following is a quote from genetic scientist Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig:
"My empirical research in genetics and my studies of biological subjects such as physiology and morphology bring me face-to-face with the enormous and often unfathomable complexities of life. My study of these topics has reinforced my conviction that life, even the most basic forms of life, must have an intelligent origin.

The scientific community is well aware of the complexity found in life. But these fascinating facts are generally presented in a strong evolutionary context. In my mind, however, the arguments against the Bible account of creation fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny. I have examined such arguments over decades. After much careful study of living things and consideration of the way the laws governing the universe seem perfectly adjusted so that life on earth can exist, I am compelled to believe in a Creator."​

What he said is known by any child by common sense :yes:

 

[dust1n]

The primary logical fallacy here is known as argumentum ad verencundiam (appeal to authority). This faulty line of reasoning suggests that a certain idea or proposition should be accepted because all the “authorities” accept it. And, while it is true that legitimate authorities can be trusted to supply real evidence, it is not true that a person should accept a conclusion solely because “an authority” says that such is the case, without that authority giving proper evidence for the conclusion (Geisler and Brooks, pp. 98-99).Once in history, it was a "fact" that earth was flat.
The other one is "proof by assertion" which is used in brainwashing.

It's actually argumentum ad populum. And the OP is trying to engage in a poorly made argumentum verbosium and argumentum ad verencundiam.

 

[dust1n]

What he said is known by any child by common sense :yes:

Well, now you are just appealing to a child's common sense. Sensus communis provoco puerilium.

 

[dust1n]

Argumentum ex assumptum quod puerilium sensus communis reflectit realitatem. Jeez, Latin is fun!

 

[McBell]

Argumentum ex assumptum quod puerilium sensus communis reflectit realitatem. Jeez, Latin is fun!

You should try inverted Latin:

ɯǝʇɐʇıןɐǝɹ ʇıʇɔǝןɟǝɹ sıunɯɯoɔ snsuǝs ɯnıןıɹǝnd ponb ɯnʇdɯnssɐ xǝ ɯnʇuǝɯnbɹɐ
​

 

[Skwim]

You should try inverted Latin:

ɯǝʇɐʇıןɐǝɹ ʇıʇɔǝןɟǝɹ sıunɯɯoɔ snsuǝs ɯnıןıɹǝnd ponb ɯnʇdɯnssɐ xǝ ɯnʇuǝɯnbɹɐ
​

Or just backwards:

Metatilaer titcelfer sinummoc susnes muilireup douq mutpmussa xe mutnemugra

 

[McBell]

Or just backwards:

Metatilaer titcelfer sinummoc susnes muilireup douq mutpmussa xe mutnemugra

Hmm...
Would both be going to far:

ɐɹbnɯǝuʇnɯ ǝx ɐssnɯdʇnɯ bnop dnǝɹıןınɯ sǝusns ɔoɯɯnuıs ɹǝɟןǝɔʇıʇ ɹǝɐןıʇɐʇǝɯ
​

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The primary logical fallacy here is known as argumentum ad verencundiam (appeal to authority). This faulty line of reasoning suggests that a certain idea or proposition should be accepted because all the “authorities” accept it. And, while it is true that legitimate authorities can be trusted to supply real evidence, it is not true that a person should accept a conclusion solely because “an authority” says that such is the case, without that authority giving proper evidence for the conclusion (Geisler and Brooks, pp. 98-99).Once in history, it was a "fact" that earth was flat.
The other one is "proof by assertion" which is used in brainwashing.

You do realize that this fallacy is exactly what's being evoked by this thread, right? Rusra asked why "some scientists reject evolution", we answered him, and I asked Rusra why 99.9% of biologists accept evolution - a question that he has yet to answer sufficiently aside from with a baseless "scientific conspiracy" argument. That was the entire point I was making.

 

[WyattDerp]

The other one is "proof by assertion" which is used in brainwashing.

Oh, you mean like making a nonsensical statement followed by "for the author is most wise, all-knowing" and such? Haha.. glass houses and stones, what endless fun they are.

 

[WyattDerp]

What he said is known by any child by common sense :yes:

+

This faulty line of reasoning suggests that a certain idea or proposition should be accepted because all the “authorities” accept it.

The other one is "proof by assertion" which is used in brainwashing.

= comedy gold.

 

[dust1n]

You should try inverted Latin:

ɯǝʇɐʇıןɐǝɹ ʇıʇɔǝןɟǝɹ sıunɯɯoɔ snsuǝs ɯnıןıɹǝnd ponb ɯnʇdɯnssɐ xǝ ɯnʇuǝɯnbɹɐ
​

Or just backwards:

Metatilaer titcelfer sinummoc susnes muilireup douq mutpmussa xe mutnemugra

Hmm...
Would both be going to far:

ɐɹbnɯǝuʇnɯ ǝx ɐssnɯdʇnɯ bnop dnǝɹıןınɯ sǝusns ɔoɯɯnuıs ɹǝɟןǝɔʇıʇ ɹǝɐןıʇɐʇǝɯ
​

 

[Sunstone]

The notion that tens of thousands of scientists are in a conspiracy to hide flaws in the fact and theory of evolution is laughable. In this world, you can't have a conspiracy of ten people without running a risk of exposure. For tens of thousands of people to engage in a conspiracy, and yet no one come forth to unmask it, is utterly implausible.

 

[painted wolf]

Why do some people believe that Elvis is still alive and well?
That the light from balls of gas billions of light years away control their fate?

Your quoted scientist has admitted that his goal is to protect his faith in an ancient book and it's deity.

wa:do

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

As I suspected, since evolutionists cannot attack the logic against evolution, they attack those who expose the fallacies of evolution. A common tactic of propagandists.

The same can be said of creationists. The issue here isn't logic, because your authors 'logic' is based on faith, not on reason. It's not logic, it's bias based on faith. So there's no logic to attack or defend against.

The problem is that no non-believing scientist thinks that evolution didn't happen. But instead of accepting the facts, creationists, in their usual fallacious style, cry conspiracy, which is their answer to everything that doesn't agree with their beliefs. This is why debate with fundamentalist Christians is pointless. It's impossible to reason with someone who has already decided that they've thrown reason out for faith. The two don't mix, at all. And until this truth is realized, those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible will not ever understand or even be able to be open to the possibility that they could possibly be wrong, their mindsets don't allow for it, because of the damage it would do to their psyche. So the debate is pointless, because there is no debate, just argumentation, which gets no one no where.

EDIT: I thought about this, too, after making my post. Fundamentalist Christians equate creationism with god-belief, and evolution with atheism, which is far from the case. Most theists accept evolution, and realize that the creation story in Genesis doesn't have to be literal for it to have meaning. For example, take this quote from St. Augustine:

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. “Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [1 Timothy 1.7].”

 

[Me Myself]

The primary logical fallacy here is known as argumentum ad verencundiam (appeal to authority). This faulty line of reasoning suggests that a certain idea or proposition should be accepted because all the “authorities” accept it. And, while it is true that legitimate authorities can be trusted to supply real evidence, it is not true that a person should accept a conclusion solely because “an authority” says that such is the case, without that authority giving proper evidence for the conclusion (Geisler and Brooks, pp. 98-99).Once in history, it was a "fact" that earth was flat.
The other one is "proof by assertion" which is used in brainwashing.

Its funny because you are describing how people come to believe in Islam xD

 

[rusra02]

Even if one person was "many"; what matters are their arguments...! That they're "scientists" doesn't mean squat. That's just a word, like "expert", or "God". Does that even get through to you?

And yet, supporters of Evolution point to scientists as authorities, those you say do not "mean squat". Which is it to be?- BTW, here are the reasons a geologist rejects the ToE: "I was taught to believe in evolution, but I could not accept that the immense energy required to form the universe could have originated without a powerful Creator. Something cannot come from nothing. I also find a strong argument in favor of a Creator in the Bible itself. This book gives numerous examples of scientific facts in my field of expertise, such as that the earth is spherical in shape and hangs “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7; Isaiah 40:22) These realities were written in the Bible long before they were proved by human investigation.

Think of the way we are made. We possess sensory perception, self-awareness, intelligent thought, communication abilities, and feelings. In particular, we can experience, appreciate, and express love. Evolution cannot explain how these wonderful human qualities came to be.
Ask yourself, ‘How reliable and credible are the sources of information used to support evolution?’ The geologic record is incomplete, complex, and confusing. Evolutionists have failed to demonstrate proposed evolutionary processes in the laboratory with the use of scientific methodologies. And while scientists generally employ good research techniques to acquire data, they are often influenced by selfish motives when interpreting their findings. Scientists have been known to promote their own thinking when the data are inconclusive or contradictory. Their careers and their own feelings of self-worth play important roles." - Kenneth Lloyd Tanaka.​

 

[Me Myself]

As I suspected, since evolutionists cannot attack the logic against evolution, they attack those who expose the fallacies of evolution. A common tactic of propagandists.

We would need to find it first, and for it to be findable, it would need to exist.

So sure, it"is" "safe"