Part 2, an attack on creationism

[Autodidact]

Hi!

Please excuse me, you are of course correct that most of the scientists of this world do believe in the ToE. However, there has been a growing number of well known and highly respected scientists who in the past several years have come to reject said theory. As strongly as the indoctrination rages forward, there are those who have seen the numerous flaws and even lies purpetrated by those involved in this and have denounced it. Unfortunately, this world which in their own knowledge choose not to believe in God must cling to this theory or accept their Creator.

Cheers!

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT THE THEORY THAT THERE IS NO GOD. So I take it that you cannot name even ten biologists who deny ToE, despite asserting that all the best scientists now reject it? Are you planning to retract your incorrect assertion, or allow this misinformation to remain? Do you plan to continue to repeat it, now that you know it is false?

Unless you think that .01% = "all?" Because that's the approximate percentage of biologists who reject it.

 

[Autodidact]

*drums fingers and waits for DI's list of engineers, veterinarians and mathematicians.*

 

[Autodidact]

for Nick Soapdish:
Here is a post from penguino, a Hindu, in response to the question, "How do you know your holy book is from God?

I know because it all makes sense to me, and god himself wrote them.

So is Penguino right? Is his holy book from God? If not, how can you tell him otherwise, since it makes sense to him--or her?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Too me, evolution says we came from a rock.

Then what you think evolution says is wrong.

Evolution is only concerned with how life changes over successive generations. Without life in the first place, there is no such thing as evolution.

The idea that life emerged from non-life is called abiogenesis, and it's something distinct from evolution. Acceptance of evolution does not automatically imply acceptance of abiogenesis- the Catholic Church, for example, accepts that evolution happened, but holds that God planted the first seeds of life directly... as do many other Christian denominations.

 

[Orthodox]

Too me, evolution says we came from a rock.

You should probably just go with the argument that God told you evolution is wrong rather than repeat this anywhere else.

I mean, if I said that I wasn't a Christian because "to me, the Bible is a milkshake recipe" people wouldn't think much of me.

 

[Valjean]

Hi!

I do not wish to debate, but will answer your questions. I was taught evolution for 20 years and as I became old enough to think about it objectively, found it nonsensical, to me, (it-evolution, not the believers in the theory). I understand many intelligent people quite seriously believe it, and I absolutely respect that.

Too me, evolution says we came from a rock. The school textbooks tell us the earth was hot, molten rock, then the surface cooled and hardened into, well, rock. Then it rained for a long time, lightning struck a mud puddle, and produced the first cell, the simplest of which is more complex than a space shuttle, and millions of years later, here we are. I simply do not believe that.

I do not believe chance formed the chromosomes/DNA blueprints by which we are designed. I do not believe in order from chaos, denying scientific law, nor in a kind becoming another kind, nor in a big bang wherein matter came from nothing, denying scientific law, or worse saying the law was not in effect yet, denying it yet again. Time has gone by since I was taught these things, yet they resonate with fantasy now as they did then. Cheers!

What scientific theory denies scientific law? Science uses known laws and processes to explain the how and why of things. I don't understand how you can find magic a more complete and understandable mechanism than the demonstrable laws of physics.

Do you believe in heavier than air flight? That idea seemed pretty ridiculous to many at one time. And I know you don't believe in atomic power. That requires some really wacky and counter-intuitive ideas about how the universe works.

Understanding how order develops from chaos requires a certain knowledge of chemistry and physics. It is a series of small steps that, together, produce the world we see around us.
Watching a crystal grow seems like magic, too, but if you take the time to understand the chemistry and physics behind it, crystal growth soon seems the obvious and expected outcome of certain chemical situations.

 

[Zeno]

Too me, evolution says we came from a rock. The school textbooks tell us the earth was hot, molten rock, then the surface cooled and hardened into, well, rock. Then it rained for a long time, lightning struck a mud puddle, and produced the first cell, the simplest of which is more complex than a space shuttle,

Luckily your problem with this chain of events has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. You are describing abiogenesis and the origin of life - of which evolution has no stake nor makes any claim.

Beyond that, your explanation is a gross over-simplification and there exist numerous explanations behind this chain of events. Some of these have even been shown to occur experimentally (see link) and have been observed (see link).

1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).
4. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.
5. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.

-Wikipeida

As I have said before, know your enemy before you make an attack.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You should probably just go with the argument that God told you evolution is wrong rather than repeat this anywhere else.

I mean, if I said that I wasn't a Christian because "to me, the Bible is a milkshake recipe" people wouldn't think much of me.

To be fair, it does have some good tips that are applicable: nobody likes a hot, goat-flavoured milkshake, for example.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

I would like to see a list of these "growing number of well known and highly respected scientists".

And although Kent Hovind falls into the first category, he falls short (by a great huge margin) of the second.

Hi!

I don't think Kent Hovind is on the lists, in fact he is doing time! Have you watched this man's seminar series? I agree with much of what he says, yet much is refuted by AiG.

I have read of many famous scientists that made huge contributions to society who believed creation, although most are from times past. However, I maintain that recently, the amount of scientists who reject ToE is increasing despite persecution and threat of their jobs. Here are some links I came across with a brief search, lists and quotes and articles...

Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net read and scroll down for list.

Creation scientists and other biographies of interest read and scroll down for list.

Scientists Speak Out Regarding Evolution Quotes of famous scientists who reject evolution.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Many_current_scientists_reject_evolution

CSC - Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin’s Theory on the Rise

Cheers!

 

[stone]

Hi!

Too me, evolution says we came from a rock.

This has to be a hoax post!

 

[Mr. Peanut]

Hi!

Lots of evolutionists here, I see. I am a Bible-believing creationist and I believe science supports creation rather than evolution. If all of you are convinced of evolution that is ok with me. I am just as convinced of creation without evolution. I respect your opinions, whether or not you do likewise.

Cheers!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lots of evolutionists here, I see. I am a Bible-believing creationist and I believe science supports creation rather than evolution.

I'd like to see your rationale for this belief.

Personally, I don't see how it can work. The only reasonable (or at least logically consistent) alternatives I've come across are either acceptance of the theory of evolution as the logical consequence of the evidence at hand (i.e "evolution is true, because it and nothing else is supported by evidence"), or rejection of that evidence through the claim of supernatural influence (i.e. "Direct Creation is true, despite the evidence; while the evidence at hand points to evolution, it was created bv a method that is unknown to us").

I cannot see how anyone can reasonably and honestly go about supporting the idea that the evidence we have for the history of life either supports Creationism or refutes the theory of evolution.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

I believe the evidence refutes evolution and supports creation.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi!

I don't think Kent Hovind is on the lists, in fact he is doing time! Have you watched this man's seminar series? I agree with much of what he says, yet much is refuted by AiG.

I have read of many famous scientists that made huge contributions to society who believed creation, although most are from times past. However, I maintain that recently, the amount of scientists who reject ToE is increasing despite persecution and threat of their jobs. Here are some links I came across with a brief search, lists and quotes and articles...

Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net read and scroll down for list.

Creation scientists and other biographies of interest read and scroll down for list.

Scientists Speak Out Regarding Evolution Quotes of famous scientists who reject evolution.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Many_current_scientists_reject_evolution

CSC - Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin’s Theory on the Rise

Cheers!

So I take it you cannot name ten leading biologists who reject the ToE?

 

[Autodidact]

What's annoying about creationists is that they lie so much, and refuting their lies takes time and trouble. Although their lies are amply refuted, they persist in disseminating them, which is irresponsible, immoral, and fundamentally dishonest. Knowing this, I randomly chose Mr. Peanut's third link to explore. The first quote there is:

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)

The facts are:

The widely touted “Dr. Etheridge, of the British Museum,” who always appeared in creationist literature without a given name, was quoted by Townsend as saying, “In all this great museum there is not a particle of evidence transmutation of species. Nine-tenths of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views.” The content of Etheridge’s statement varied from work to work, and its source remained unidentified, except for Alexander Patterson’s comment that Etheridge was answering a question put to him by a Dr. George E. Post. When curious parties in the 1920s inquired about the identity of Etheridge, the director of the British Museum surmised that the man in question was “Robert Etheridge, Junr., who was Assistant Keeper of Geology in this Museum from 1881 to 1891,”

Did you get that? It's an undocumented quote from an assistant geologist from over 100 years ago. Do you think biology has made any progress in the last 100 years? The misuse of this quote is so dishonest as to be, in effect, a lie. Yet, there it is, on the net, still circulating, reiterated by dishonest creationists.

Next:

"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." (Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen)

Albert Fleischmann (1862-1942), a reputable but relatively obscure German zoologist who taught for decades at the University of Erlangen in Bavaria. In 1901 he published a scientific critique of organic evolution, Die Descendenz-theorie, in which he rejected not only Darwinism but all theories of common organic descent. This placed him in a unique position among biologists. As Kellogg noted in 1907, Fleischmann seemed to be “the only biologist of recognised position … who publicly declared a disbelief in the theory of descent.”

This work was published in 1901! Do you think we've learned anything about Biology in the last 100 years! Well, at least he was a Biologist, when he died decades ago.

Well, time does not permit me to continue. This continued dishonesty by the creationist movement raises some interesting questions.

What does it do to the credibility of a position when its proponents are repeatedly caught lying on its behalf?
If what they were saying were true, would they have to lie to advocate for it?
What about people like Mr. Peanut, who disseminate these lies? Are they just ignorant victims of dishonest propagandists like Kent Hovind? Are they dishonest themselves? Or are they just fundamentally irresponsible?

 

[Autodidact]

I believe the evidence refutes evolution and supports creation.

Really? That's so interesting? What evidence?

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SAYS? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS THAT SUPPORTS IT?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe the evidence refutes evolution and supports creation.

What evidence?

In what way does it refute evolution? In what way does it support creation?

 

[Autodidact]

Here's what Mr. Peanut said

People are still arguing for evolution? Wow, indoctrination really works. Get with the times gentlemen, the best scientists have utterly rejected that nonsense, it is full of holes, don't you know? Ah, well, sorry, believe what you like, I'll not stand in your way.

This statement is false, and has been shown false in this thread. So we stand by to see whether he has the integrity to admit that he made a false statement, or whether he will continue to promulgate this dishonesty on the internet.

 

[painted wolf]

Peanut... you really should read the links you post before you post them

this one: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Many_current_scientists_reject_evolution

is all about why your argument about "many current scientists" is FAKE

Given as how creationists rarely, if ever, state who these current scientists are, or even if they are in relevant fields, this claim is worthless. In the cases where a list is given, the list consists of non-scientists, scientists in irrelevant fields, scientists who died before Darwin was born, scientists who accept evolution and believe in God and scientists who were quoted out of context as rejecting evolution.

'Many' is different from 'most'; looking at what percentage of scientists accept or reject evolution would be a more useful measurement of the prevailing attitude toward the theory. Evolution is in fact accepted by the vast majority of scientists, biologists even more so.

as you can see your source is arguing against your claim.

wa:do

 

[McBell]

Hi!

I don't think Kent Hovind is on the lists, in fact he is doing time! Have you watched this man's seminar series? I agree with much of what he says, yet much is refuted by AiG.

I have read of many famous scientists that made huge contributions to society who believed creation, although most are from times past. However, I maintain that recently, the amount of scientists who reject ToE is increasing despite persecution and threat of their jobs. Here are some links I came across with a brief search, lists and quotes and articles...

Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net read and scroll down for list.

Creation scientists and other biographies of interest read and scroll down for list.

Scientists Speak Out Regarding Evolution Quotes of famous scientists who reject evolution.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Many_current_scientists_reject_evolution

CSC - Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin’s Theory on the Rise

Cheers!

You really need to pay attention to what is actually on the site you link.
Two of the links have absolutely nothing to do with evolution, One link is flat out supporting evolution, One link has many out of context quotes, and finally one of your Five listed links does present a list of people who are against evolution.
How well know and respected they are remains to be seen.