Why is there so much opposition to evolution?

[Man of Faith]

[/size][/font]

If they know that creationism is true and evolution is false, then they are being intellectually dishonest regardless of whether they're on the job or not. Just going with it because the mainstream science accepts it is still intellectually dishonest because they're pretending that they accept it when they really don't.



How do you know this?

Well I gave it my best shot. The rest is up to you to do your own research if you want to.

 

[Matthew78]

Well I gave it my best shot. The rest is up to you to do your own research if you want to.

This was your best shot? Making assertions without evidence? Suggestions that scientists are intellectually dishonest? Well, if this was your best shot, then I guess I can commend you for at least stepping up to bat.

I have done my own research on the subject and I continue to research the subject. My conclusion? Creationism is nonsense and Christianity is even worse nonsense.

 

[camanintx]

All the sciences are against evolution happening:
Probability... (math hates evolution)
Laws of Thermodynamics... (Physics hates evolution)
Chemical Creation of life... (it doesn't happen so Chemistry hates Evolution)
Mutations that do good???... (Biology hates evolution)
Defies Bible and other Religious Texts (Religion hates evolution)
Has barely any evidence and cannot repeat experiments to prove itself....
(Science hates Evolution!!!)

We also have a lacking fossil record.

There's some gish gallop for you.

 

[camanintx]

Well I gave it my best shot.

I can believe that.

 

[Iti oj]

That is correct, one judge deemed that creation was religion. Now if you are a scientist that wants to be taken seriously and get your works published in the top literature, do you mention creation or a designer in the context of creation? Of course not, you will be the laughing stock of science and your career is essentially over. If scientists want their liberal research money to keep coming in, they stay far away from anything that even hits of creation or design talk.

That is why the the consensus is “we know it happened, we just have to figure out how”. If they don’t know how it happened, why do they know it happened? Because it is a political stance, and good for their careers. There are a lot of scientists that don’t accept it and they are called names and not taken seriously.

That judge declared that because the scientific community agrees evolution was and creationism was just religious mombo jumbo. why did they decide that thus convince the judgr to make his ruling

 

[Sunstone]

If scientists want their liberal research money to keep coming in, they stay far away from anything that even hits of creation or design talk.

Right. That's why not a single one of the world's half million evolutionary scientists has ever come forward in any country on earth to expose the scam. And if you believe that, what is your stance on the existence of unicorns?

 

[Agnostic75]

Now if a Christian scientist doesn’t accept evolution but publishes pro-evolution papers then yes I would call that scientist intellectually dishonest. But I suspect that those types are very rare because I’ve seen polls to suggest that a high number of scientists are non-religious in their beliefs.

In fact, many scientists who accept evolution believe that a God exists, or are agnostics. Ken Miller, Ph.D., biology, is well-known, accepts theistic evolution, and is a devout Roman Catholic.

Consider the following:

Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline | LiveScience

Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God.

You are obviously misinformed.

Besides, very few scientists actually do evolutionary cutting edge work, most just do lab work on a small scale that support other scientist ventures.

What is "cutting edge work," and how many scientists do it?

Isn't your only argument that science can only be right when it agrees with the Bible?

Do you believe that a global flood occured, and that the earth is young?

 

[Photonic]

Well I gave it my best shot. The rest is up to you to do your own research if you want to.

Well, unless you want to claim to know more of physics than a physicist, I'm going to tell you outright that Physics and evolution are completely compatible.

 

[camanintx]

If scientists want their liberal research money to keep coming in, they stay far away from anything that even hits of creation or design talk.

Since Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, the Creation Research Society, the Geoscience Research Institute and the Institute for Creation Research are not dependant on liberal research money, what is there excuse?

 

[Agnostic75]

If scientists want their liberal research money to keep coming in, they stay far away from anything that even hits of creation or design talk.

How much money do you suppose was available for evolutionary research when Charles Darwin wrote 'On the Origin of Species,' and Christian prayer was used in public schools, and evolution was not taught in public schools? In fact, it was evolutionists who originally had a big disadvantage financially, and numerically, not creationists. The only reason that evolution gainted a lot of acceptance was that it made sense to many scientists, certainly not because Darwin et al originally had a lot more research money than creationists did. My word, you can bet that when Darwin released 'On the Origin of Species,' his opponents had far more money to attack his research than Darwin et al had to promote his research. The financial and numerical deck were stacked against Darwin, but he eventually won in the opinions of the vast majoirity of experts, and many laymen as well. Since Darwin released 'On the Origin of Species,' surely hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent by creationists who tried to discredit evolution.

Even today, the entire U.S. Supreme Court are Christians, no one except for a Christian could be elected president, and the vast majority of U.S. Congressmen, and U.S. Senators, are Christians. For you information, the U.S. is still a predominantly Christian country, and atheists are only a very small minority.

 

[Alceste]

Well, unless you want to claim to know more of physics than a physicist, I'm going to tell you outright that Physics and evolution are completely compatible.

If he's happy to lecture Painted Wolf about the true facts of biology, I'm sure he will be just as happy to lecture you about true facts of physics.

 

[Photonic]

If he's happy to lecture Painted Wolf about the true facts of biology, I'm sure he will be just as happy to lecture you about true facts of physics.

I lecture BACK.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

there is only opposition due to theism and ignorance.

That doesnt mean all theist are ignorant but rather theisms brainwashing since early childhood has deep roots, it puts road blocks and closes minds tighlty.

No matter how good the case and evidence is you cannot get through to many theist.

all the sciences are against evolution happening:
probability... (math hates evolution)
laws of thermodynamics... (physics hates evolution)
chemical creation of life... (it doesn't happen so chemistry hates evolution)
mutations that do good???... (biology hates evolution)
defies bible and other religious texts (religion hates evolution)
has barely any evidence and cannot repeat experiments to prove itself....
(science hates evolution!!!)

we also have a lacking fossil record.

qed ^^

 

[Tiberius]

I don't see much point either, because people are going to accept what they want to accept. If the schools have a monopoly on indoctrination then it’s practically impossible to defeat that. However I will make an attempt to show people the light.

Okay, let's see what you got.

All the sciences are against evolution happening:

orly?

Probability... (math hates evolution)

Only if you think Evolution is completely random. Which it isn't. Evolution is not random because it uses natural selection, which leads to non-random results.

Probability has no problem with evolution.

Laws of Thermodynamics...

Only in a closed system. But the earth is an open system, with energy constantly pouring in from the sun.

The laws of thermodynamics have no problem with evolution.

Chemical Creation of life... (it doesn't happen so Chemistry hates Evolution)

You think that just because you don't see it today that it could never have happened?

Let's see, you are assuming that conditions when life first arose are the same as they are now (which they weren't), you're forgetting the Urey-Miller experiment which showed how easily the building blocks of life are to create, and you are forgetting that evolution has nothing to do with how life got here, only how it has changed over time!

Mutations that do good???... (Biology hates evolution)

Actually, most mutations are neutral.

Defies Bible and other Religious Texts (Religion hates evolution)

Ahem - defies the ideas of people living thousands of years ago.

Has barely any evidence and cannot repeat experiments to prove itself....
(Science hates Evolution!!!)

Evolution has a ton of evidence, and it has made many testable predictions and has also been subject to countless numbers of experiments.

We also have a lacking fossil record.

First of all, the fossil record is more than enough to verify evolution. But evolution has so many supporting bits of evidence that it would still be certain even if there was no fossil record at all.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why is there so much opposition to evolution?

Because there are a lot of unintelligent and ignorant people in the world.

 

[johnhanks]

I am against it because it didn't happen.

Disingenuous. You insist it didn't happen because you are against it.

 

[Man of Faith]

Disingenuous. You insist it didn't happen because you are against it.

That might have been true at one time, but after my research I found out that I was right, it didn't happen.

 

[johnhanks]

That might have been true at one time, but after my research I found out that I was right, it didn't happen.

And what was the nature of this 'research'? Given that every piece of alleged counter-evidence you have posted here has been thoroughly shredded, you might like to look at it again.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

That might have been true at one time, but after my research I found out that I was right, it didn't happen.

Can you explain how you went about this research?

Can you give us the names of books or websites?

-Q

 

[Man of Faith]

And what was the nature of this 'research'? Given that every piece of alleged counter-evidence you have posted here has been thoroughly shredded, you might like to look at it again.

So, if I said "wrong" as a counter-rebuttal to those rebuttals then I whould shread that rebuttal?