Creationist - What about Evolution you disagree with?

[McBell]

Dearry, the point being that you can longer say that every scientist agrees with TOE and those that do not are uneducated idiots. This is a line you lot like to shove up creationists.

New Gallup poll: America still creationist (surprise!) « Why Evolution Is True

13% do not agree with TOE. Meaning more than 1 out of every 8 and the number has grown since the '80's.

I have made my point, and I'll shove it up you when ever necessary.

And I did note that you completely failed to address the point of the post you replied to.

I have often wondered if you just look for the first handy quote button for your copy/paste bonanza...

 

[Skwim]

Dearry, the point being that you can longer say that every scientist agrees with TOE and those that do not are uneducated idiots. This is a line you lot like to shove up creationists.

New Gallup poll: America still creationist (surprise!) « Why Evolution Is True

13% do not agree with TOE. Meaning more than 1 out of every 8 and the number has grown since the '80's.

I have made my point, and I'll shove it up you when ever necessary.

Ah, the last desperate measure of the defeated: violence. → •

 

[Alceste]

Thanks, its an interesting field no doubt. I suspect the further we get into the DNA "universe", we will unlock some new information. I would like to see abstracts of new investigations if you have any.

Feel free to browse google scholar:
abiogenesis - Google Scholar

 

[McBell]

Ah, the last desperate measure of the defeated: violence. → •

I am not the least bit worried.

Based upon her posts I would surmise that she is the type to randomly empty a clip and then claim that what was hit is what she was aiming at.

 

[Skwim]

I am not the least bit worried.

Based upon her posts I would surmise that she is the type to randomly empty a clip and then claim that what was hit is what she was aiming at.

Absolutely!

And clinging to her silly 87% and 13% is another good example of her mulishness. But what the hey, I can only imagine that boxing oneself into a corner must be kind of embarrassing.

 

[painted wolf]

Good.... because you cannot even agree with statistics. You are a bigot if you so hate that you are prepared to appear to be illiterate and unable to understand your own stats.

Look at you all wriggling and squirming and unable to listen to statistics.

The sad fact for you is that in 2009 only 87% of scientists adhered to TOE, and 13% did not. I would also assert that a great many scientists would not be happy to go on record as being a decanter, regardless of the confidentiality promised.

It does not matter that there are refutes to Sandfords research. Your own evolutionary scientists refute each other, although they are evolutionists. How much more likely will they be determined to offer refutes to work they is totally against their belief system. Sandford’s work is support for creation just as much as any of your assumptive probability modelling can be put forward as any evidence for TOE.

It is a sad day for RF when it defenders of the TOE faith are unable to acknowledge statistics from a non creationist source.

I may also add that the percentage of TOE decanters has gown steadily over the past 12 years.

13% of credentialed scientists do not agree with TOE. Hence scepticism re TOE is not only the realm of the uneducated and ignorant. Rather, it is many of the evolutionists here on RF that continue to show themselves to be ignorant, arrogant and unable to accept reality. Perhaps this information feels too threatening for you to acknowledge. Is it just so fear inspiring to learn that indeed 13% of your researcher do not accept TOE, that you think if you ignore it for long enough this fact will go away? It won’t!

You can ignore that data as much as you like and it will never go away.

13% of scientists think TOE is crap!!!!!!!! HOORAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again you aren't actually paying attention to what you cut and paste.

87% don't think god had anything to do with it... 8% still go with evolution, as a god directed process (like myself)... that is 97%

only 2% actually rejects Evolution.

You are once again pulling a tricoplax and not actually paying attention.

Daily Number: Evolutionary Theory - Pew Research Center

You saw a number, jumped to a conclusion and now are making a fool of yourself with your crazy fonting and carrying on.

Not that anyone is really surprised by this.

wa:do

 

[Onlooker]

You're starting to gibberish again. My point is merely that I'm sure you can figure out how any specific hypothesis as to the origin of life could be tested and could be falsified. So far, none of these hypotheses has been strongly evidenced enough to prevail, but if history is any indicator, we can be confident that one day one will.

Have you read any abiogenesis theories?
Let me lay one on you and tell me if this sounds like gibberish or mystical?
The amino acids (that somehow formed, much like the MU experiment of chemical soup and lightning in a redox atmosphere), these amino acids somehow grouped together in a concentration that was high enough to make a protein through sheer numbers and time. Once this did occur, a crystalline backbone structure allowed these amino acids and proteins to form.....oh crap, the magic man did it.
you are right, gibberish.

 

[Autodidact]

Dearry, the point being that you can longer say that every scientist agrees with TOE and those that do not are uneducated idiots. This is a line you lot like to shove up creationists.

New Gallup poll: America still creationist (surprise!) « Why Evolution Is True

13% do not agree with TOE. Meaning more than 1 out of every 8 and the number has grown since the '80's.

I have made my point, and I'll shove it up you when ever necessary.

What I have said, and continue to say, is that the overwhelming consensus of Biologists support and accept ToE. And that is the only statistic that matters.

 

[Autodidact]

Have you read any abiogenesis theories?

I have only a little familiarity. Not being a Biologist or Biochemist, I'll wait for them to figure it out.

Let me lay one on you and tell me if this sounds like gibberish or mystical?
The amino acids (that somehow formed, much like the MU experiment of chemical soup and lightning in a redox atmosphere), these amino acids somehow grouped together in a concentration that was high enough to make a protein through sheer numbers and time. Once this did occur, a crystalline backbone structure allowed these amino acids and proteins to form.....oh crap, the magic man did it.
you are right, gibberish.

Start a thread please. It has nothing to do with this one, and derailing it in this way is both confusing and rude.

Also, I'm skeptical that you have described the hypothesis accurately.

 

[Onlooker]

So what you're saying is, since scientists cannot give a total, complete account of the origin of life to a 100% degree of certainty, then it's no different than some story made up by anyone?

Do you hold everything to that standard of perfection?

Yes and no. Yes- that scientist cant give a complete answer. No- scientist are gaining focus and will probably get the answers. They have the advantage of holding their heads high and peer over at their metaphysical scientist colleagues and chortle.
I use to have a standard of perfection, but as age creeps in, Im just glad to be in the game now.

 

[Onlooker]

Start a thread please. It has nothing to do with this one, and derailing it in this way is both confusing and rude.

Also, I'm skeptical that you have described the hypothesis accurately.

Not my intention, sorry.
So if I start a thread, your expecting me to read up on that stuff arent you. No more on that subject.

 

[painted wolf]

Have you read any abiogenesis theories?
Let me lay one on you and tell me if this sounds like gibberish or mystical?
The amino acids (that somehow formed, much like the MU experiment of chemical soup and lightning in a redox atmosphere), these amino acids somehow grouped together in a concentration that was high enough to make a protein through sheer numbers and time. Once this did occur, a crystalline backbone structure allowed these amino acids and proteins to form.....oh crap, the magic man did it.
you are right, gibberish.

That totally sounds like gibberish...

Amino acids form quite easily and are found in amazingly high numbers and varieties across the universe... over 120 of them have been found, given that life on Earth only needs about 20 of them, it's pretty impressive.
Found: first amino acid on a comet - space - 17 August 2009 - New Scientist
Amino acid found in deep space - 18 July 2002 - New Scientist

RNA is capable of self catalyzing and better yet, self replication.
Knocking on the door of life: Self-replicating RNA synthesized

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Not my intention, sorry.
So if I start a thread, your expecting me to read up on that stuff arent you. No more on that subject.

Thank you. Now, do you have anything to say on the subject of this thread?

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

Have you read any abiogenesis theories?
Let me lay one on you and tell me if this sounds like gibberish or mystical?

So, you still cannot tell evolution apart from abiogenesis?

THIS thread is about evolution - which is an observed fact of nature.

It's a pity you don't know anything about it.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

So if I start a thread, your expecting me to read up on that stuff arent you. No more on that subject.

So,
you've never "read up on this stuff",
and you have no intention of doing so.

It shows.


Iasion

 

[Krok]

No.

Yes you were. You tried to change the meanings of the words metaphysical and macro-evolution.
I’ll quote you:

One was the macroevolution concept. Microevolution is changes below the species level while macroevolution can be considered changes on a grand scale and functional changes that occur on a higher taxa.

That’s changing the definition of what macro-evolution is.

....you cant. this is a metaphysical, non falsifiable argument (God created... ).

Your God has the exact same features as fairies, nobody can test for it. That’s why I think your God doesn’t exist, just like fairies.

The DNA part is evolution with design. You are testing it.

You can’t even define design. The closest you get to it is: “It looks designed”. Like 5-year olds. Furthermore, you can’t even find one piece of empirical evidence for your God to exists. Everything you try further is argumentum ad consequentium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
You wish that what you believe is true.

yes it is a presupposition, its a cornerstone of all evolution science.

No, it isn’t. It doesn’t help to repeat an untruth, it still doesn’t become true.

The first cell is what I am talking about. The first fossil. You cant evolve from nothing.

Neither the first cell nor the oldest fossils are metaphysical. They are physical. I’ve told you what they were.

..... so the abiogenesis part of the equation,....

In other words you are not arguing against ToE, but against abiogenesis. Why do you keep going on about evolutionists?

.... the single cell with reproducible traits, came from somewhere.....

The ToE doesn’t even consider where the first cell came from. It explains what happens afterwards. Even if the first cell popped out of nowhere, your God “poofing” it into existence, Panspermia, abiogenesis or some unknown method, those fossils are still the common ancestors of all life on earth.

(currently: creation, panspermia, crystalline (non organic) framework lattice for newly created organic molecules to form are a few of the arguments for the single cell popping up from nowhere).

No, you’ve got it wrong. The ToE doesn’t say anything about where the first life came from. Even if it popped up from nowhere, it won’t change the ToE. You’re describing abiogenesis.

The FIRST one IS metaphysical.

No, it isn’t. Again, it doesn’t matter how many times you repeat an untruth, those fossils are not metaphysical.

Your describing all the followers.

How do you know that? Ever studied those rocks or any rock or fossil for that matter?

Where is the fossil for the first one?

As I said before, in rocks. I’ve got one on my desk. You’re welcome to come and have a look at it.

I am trying to show you that your belief system (currently what science can bring) is hinging on a metaphysical component.

I’m trying to show you that, it doesn’t matter how many times you claim that, it doesn’t make it true.

....my bet is a thermophilic (extremophilic) prokaryotic organism.

How do you know that? Have you ever even seen one of those rocks? Have you ever studied one of those rocks?

... possibly. the first step in recovery is admitting you may have a problem.

Every scientific theory or hypothesis has unknowns. That’s why we still do research. If we knew it all, we wouldn’t have to do any work. The first step for you would be to admit your problem that you don't know what the ToE is.

.....not true, its always bad when you say never/always, better to leave it at sometimes/majority/minority of the time.

agreed.

Of course it’s true. Creationists don’t follow the scientific method. They start with a conclusion (the Bible or Quran or whatever is always true) and then the pick and choose the evidence they want to acknowledge. The scientific method works the opposite way round, you look at the evidence first, consider all the evidence and reach conclusions as a last step.

Words are important. It was late, my meaning was fallibility, testability, falsifiability. So to rephrase it: So creationist and evolutionist believe, in part, non testable assertions.

No, “evolutionists” don’t believe in anything about the first life. They’ve got fossils of our last common ancestor. What they do know is that the last common ancestor for all current life was a prokaryote, of which we have fossils. Creationists “believe” in a sky-daddy for which there is no empirical evidence at all.

Time and conditions just arent known exactly.

Luckily we can do research to try and find out. By research I mean educated people working, not people reading ancient books.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

From your source:

Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa.

Your definition:

One was the macroevolution concept. Microevolution is changes below the species level while macroevolution can be considered changes on a grand scale and functional changes that occur on a higher taxa.

You changed the meaning of the word macro-evolution.

....fossils are everywhere, where was the first one? that is axiomatic in the evolutionist world. No hall pass for you today, it came from somewhere/somehow.

The evidence for last common ancestor of life as we know it is the fossils of prokaryotic organisms in 3.8 billion year old rocks. There it is. No word-salad from your side is going to change the facts.

Not arguing about fossils. Not sure about all the metrics, but the age of the universe/solar system/planet/moon are agreeable. Fossils are great.

And they are not metaphysical.

 

[newhope101]

And I did note that you completely failed to address the point of the post you replied to.

I have often wondered if you just look for the first handy quote button for your copy/paste bonanza...

There is nothing to debate Mestemia. It is a fact of life that some credentialed scientists disagree with TOE. It doesn't matter if it is 1% or 13%. And as long as you continue to dispute it, I will come back and paste this information.

When it comes to contemporary scientific issues, these differences are often even larger. Most notably, 87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection. Just 32% of the public accepts this as true.
Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Overview - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

You lot are the ones straining this point and being unable to accept a fairly clear fact. I am also prepared to strain it for a long as you wish to come back and refute it.

This is not about disproving TOE. It is about saying that you do not have to be uneducated or ignorant to be skeptical of TOE. There are some very clever people out there that also have some problems with it.

 

[Oneatatime]

Hi, a little late in this forum. But what do you mean by testable hypothesis? Can you give an example of a testable hypothesis on evolution (is that what this discussion is about?).

Googlescholar ""evolution" and you'll find several peer-reviewed papers with them in unless you believe that the scientific community devotes huges amounts of time and money to doing something else other than science. The question still stands and until creationists can propose testable hypotheses and actually do some science then it won't be considered a genuine science.

This thread was directed at creationsts and trying to find what particular aspects of evolution they disagree with. The approach taken by creationists such as Newhope reflects the approach taken by creationists in the US who are attempting to undermine science and promote the teaching creationism in schools. Evidence against Evolution and Teach the Contraversy are two of the more recent tactics and are those which Newhope appears to be relying on at the moment. Creationists have largely given up claiming that they have scientific evidenc for their beliefs because they've been slapped down so many times for their lies.

So once again provide a testable (And that means falfsifiable) hypothesis for creationism.

 

[David M]

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection. Just 32% of the public accepts this as true."[39]

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

100-87=13%...that do not !!!!!

Skwim.. straining the point is pointless. I have stated that well credentialed scientists do not accept TOE. Are you going to go on for pages and pages illustrating an inability to acknowledge this, regardless of what percentage we adhere to.

Camanin... the agreement that everything evolves is about the only thing agreed to in evolutionary sciences.

The days of calling creationists uneducated and ignorant are long gone, except for religious bigots that adhere to their faith regardless of evidence to the contrary. Religious bigots are the only ones having problems in acknowledging there are a small proportion of credentialed scientists that do not adhere to TOE.



Genetic Entropy

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/young_earth_creation_scientific_evidence.pdf

Ignoring the evidence and repeating your distortions of the facts I see.

As I pointed out in post #77 of this thread the percentage of scientists who agree with evolution in the Pew Poll is 95% (of the 97% who answered). You are ignoring the 8% who agreed that "Human Beings and and other living things have evolved over time...Guided by Supreme Being".

For the public the number of people who agreed with that statement was 22%, making public acceptance that life evolves to be 54%.

The number of scientists who supported creation was - 2%.

 

[Krok]

There is nothing to debate Mestemia. It is a fact of life that some credentialed scientists disagree with TOE.

It's also a fact that some "credentialed" scientists reject a spherical earth and insist that the Earth is flat. It’s also a fact that some “credentialed” scientists disagree with a heliocentric planetary system. It’s also a fact that some “credentialed” scientists disagree with theory of evolution. These groups largely overlap. A "credentialed" scientist is not necessarily sane. Some "credentialed" scientists are actually a bit looney.

The trick is to find out whether relevant scientists agree or disagree or not. For specialists on the Theory of Evolution, relevant scientists are Biologists and Paleontologists, with some Geologists as it overlaps with paleontology. People like physicists, chemists and cosmologists are not normally relevant for a biological theory. Mechanical Engineers certainly aren't.

The only "credentialed" natural scientist in my country who supports YEC is a zoologist called Walter Veith, who also believes 9-11 Conspiracy theories. Veith claims that there was no debris found at the site of the crash of Flight 93 in Shanksville, PA. He is a complete looney. Doesn’t even consider anything if it doesn’t confirm his biases.

Furthermore, I don’t believe the figures you provided for very good reasons. You only have to look at the Discovery Institute’s “A scientific Dissent from Darwinism”. They’ve gathered around 760 signatures from all over the world. Signatures from every country imaginable. A large number of the signatures are from Philosophers, Engineers and Medical Doctors. Also some of them don’t even have any accredited degrees. These people are not relevant for the Theory of evolution.

In 1999, only in the US, you had 736 700 people in the workforce with Ph.D.’s in the natural sciences and Engineering. (Source http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/us-workforce/1999/tables/TableC1.pdf ) A figure of 760 signatories (worldwide, including philosophers), while you have 736 700 Ph.D.’s (only natural sciences and Engineering), just in the US, is neglegable. The numbers of scientists increased since these figures. To put it into perspective, the US had over 10 900 000 natural scientists and Engineers in 1999!

The South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions, the body regulating natural science professionals in my country, accounts for 3978 registered professional natural scientists, of which 925 have Ph.D.’s. The one natural scientist who signed ("The scientific dissent against Darwinism" petition of the Discovery Institute) is one out of 925 equals 0.11%. One out of 3978 natural scientists equals 0.025%. (Source http://www.infoveld.com/sarnap/sarnap.dll/EXEC/1/1yqcp4114ohm2c1epgb9s0a7ku9b ) This figure does not include other sciences like Engineering or mathematics. Natural scientists only. The only other South African professional who signed the statement is a Mechanical Engineer. The body regulating professional Engineers have about double the numbers we have in the natural sciences.

Also, from Wiki: Furthermore, according to Newsweek, One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science". An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[23][24]

I am not posting this to convince newhope101, as he doesn’t believe anything but his Bible. I am posting this to give other readers a better understanding of the relatively very small numbers of evolution-denying scientists involved. The scientific method works on scientific consensus, not a very small number of “rogue scientists who don't follow the scientific method”. It works on convincing your scientific peers on your conclusions and consensus of the overwhelming number of relevant scientists.