User Tag List

Page 1 of 10 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 475

Thread: Scientists Question Darwinism

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    13,706
    Thanks
    1,280
    Thanked 8,725 Times in 5,722 Posts

    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147837

    Scientists Question Darwinism

    “I think more scientists are realizing the limitations to Darwinism, specifically in regard to the origin of life and the complexity of the cell. So much of how cells actually work reveal how impossible it is that life arose from mutation and natural selection. As we have learned more and more about molecular and cellular biology, more scientists doubt Darwinism although they may not admit it for fear of repercussions.”

    The theory of Charles Darwin severely damaged the idea that the Bible should be understood in a literal manner in the eyes of many people but now more and more scientists are questioning Darwin's theory:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...nism-statement

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jerry Shugart For Your Post:

    Aimiel (February 11th, 2019),CatholicCrusader (February 14th, 2019)

  3. #2
    Over 6000 post club Aimiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    6,516
    Thanks
    367
    Thanked 422 Times in 310 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    117555
    Here's a list of modern as well as historical scientists who believe in creation: Creation Scientists
    "That man of sin must first be revealed." -- Jesus

    If you haven't tried: you've already failed. -- Aimiel

  4. #3
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    5,908
    Thanks
    554
    Thanked 788 Times in 648 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimiel View Post
    Here's a list of modern as well as historical scientists who believe in creation: Creation Scientists
    Considering that almost all great men of science and learning throughout history have been men of faith, I would say that list should be quite long.

  5. #4
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    9,633
    Thanks
    216
    Thanked 3,141 Times in 2,114 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    404492
    Comparing lists from "Scientists who doubt Darwin"-
    https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/ov...ts_proclaim_t/

    and "Project Steve",-
    https://ncse.com/project-steve

    - we find that about 0.3% of biologists with doctorates in biology or a related discipline don't accept evolutionary theory.

    Does this show you why the bandwagon argument is such a loser for creationists?
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  6. #5
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    25,463
    Thanks
    4,070
    Thanked 9,683 Times in 7,211 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147784
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    ... the bandwagon argument is such a loser ...


    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    ... we find that about (99.7%) of biologists with doctorates in biology or a related discipline (do) accept evolutionary theory.

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 14th, 2019),Right Divider (February 20th, 2019),way 2 go (February 13th, 2019)

  8. #6
    Over 2000 post club User Name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,275
    Thanks
    552
    Thanked 495 Times in 351 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    234181
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Does this show you why the bandwagon argument is such a loser for creationists?
    Why would anyone in their right mind want to believe the consensus of experts? It's much better to wing it.

  9. #7
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    9,633
    Thanks
    216
    Thanked 3,141 Times in 2,114 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    404492
    Quote Originally Posted by User Name View Post
    Why would anyone in their right mind want to believe the consensus of experts? It's much better to wing it.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  10. #8
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    25,463
    Thanks
    4,070
    Thanked 9,683 Times in 7,211 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147784
    Quote Originally Posted by User Name View Post
    Why would anyone in their right mind want to believe the consensus of experts?
    perhaps because they don't understand how science works?

  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    genuineoriginal (February 14th, 2019),JudgeRightly (February 21st, 2019),Right Divider (February 20th, 2019)

  12. #9
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    896
    Thanks
    46
    Thanked 489 Times in 335 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    157972
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    perhaps because they don't understand how science works?
    That is actually pretty funny, in the sense of irony. Science says the it's foundation is based in observation. Now tell me how many scientists have observed the mutation of one species into another species. That has never been observed yet it is claimed that evolution is scientific. If you cannot point to actual observation to support a theory, then the theory has never been proven according to science.

    Much of what evolutionists claim is observation, such as dating methods, are very unreliable. Those dates/ages assigned end up being guesses or arbitrarily designated time frames. And the so-called geological stack in which age is determined by where something is found in the geologic column are also very iffy. The geologic column is very often, in fact the vast majority of the time, either incomplete, out of order, or even backwards of what evolutionists claim it should be. I believe the supposed geologic column is found on only less than 5% of the earth's surface. To make the evidence fit something found in less than 5% of the earth is pretty illogical and very arbitrary.

    I would recommend a book on the inconsistencies of evolutionary theory and practice as far as scientists and science goes. The title is Tornado in a Junkyard and the author is James Perloff. He grew up believing in evolution and has studied it thoroughly. He was indoctrinated into it as a kid who hated God by the educational system. Then when he got to be an adult he started his study all over again because he came to see some inconsistencies in it. The more he studied it with an open mind the more problems he found with it. He has now written two books on it's weaknesses, but Tornado in a Junkyard is his best and most thorough eposŤ on it.

    You can order it from the following link. If you buy books totaling $10 or more the shipping is free. I've bought probably 30 books through this site and they are good to deal with. I've never had an issue with them of any kind. The book quality is consistently what they say it is, and the orders usually arrive before their estimated time of arrival. https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/tornad...05&idiq=569192

  13. #10
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    10,120
    Thanks
    1,794
    Thanked 1,774 Times in 1,299 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    523682
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    - we find that about 0.3% of biologists with doctorates in biology or a related discipline don't accept evolutionary theory.
    The biologists with doctorates in biology or a related discipline would be fired, would lose their funding, and would not be published in "peer reviewed" journals if they didn't preach the evolutionary theory religion.

    They have a lot of reasons for supporting the evolutionary theory, whether they actually believe it or not.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  14. #11
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    9,633
    Thanks
    216
    Thanked 3,141 Times in 2,114 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    404492
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    The biologists with doctorates in biology or a related discipline would be fired, would lose their funding, and would not be published in "peer reviewed" journals if they didn't preach the evolutionary theory religion.
    Hmmm... quick look at the literature...

    Michael Behe says that evolution would require God to step in and do it. He's still published, and he still has his university job.

    Creationist Siegfried Scherer criticized evolutionary theory in 1983
    Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport , Journal of Theoretical Biology 104: 289–299, 1983

    I'm pretty sure that not the only publication; I'll do some research if you'd like.

    YE creationist Russel Humphreys, working at Sandia National Laboratories has several dozen publications in the literature; much of his other work is classified, but is published in confidential or secret sources.

    They have a lot of reasons for supporting the evolutionary theory,
    Yes, they do, but as you see, job security isn't one of them. As you might know, Stephen Gould knowingly took on a YE creationist (Kurt Wise) as a doctoral candidate. As Gould once remarked, all that really counts is ability.

    Would you like me to find some more for you?
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  15. #12
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    10,120
    Thanks
    1,794
    Thanked 1,774 Times in 1,299 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    523682
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Hmmm... quick look at the literature...
    It looks like you are now trying to create a rule based only on the 0.3% of biologists that you mocked in an earlier post.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  16. #13
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    9,633
    Thanks
    216
    Thanked 3,141 Times in 2,114 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    404492
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    It looks like you are now trying to create a rule based only on the 0.3% of biologists that you mocked in an earlier post.
    No, I'm just pointing out that you are very wrong about it. Those 0.3% of biologists who are creationists, are mostly working and have tenure somewhere. And as you see, they also get published in reputable journals.

    And you should understand that a somewhat larger percentage of people with doctorates unrelated to biology, don't accept evolution. For the obvious reasons.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to The Barbarian For Your Post:

    Kit the Coyote (February 15th, 2019)

  18. #14
    Over 3000 post club
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,467
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1,650 Times in 1,231 Posts

    Blog Entries
    12
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    354187
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    “I think more scientists are realizing the limitations to Darwinism, specifically in regard to the origin of life and the complexity of the cell. So much of how cells actually work reveal how impossible it is that life arose from mutation and natural selection. As we have learned more and more about molecular and cellular biology, more scientists doubt Darwinism although they may not admit it for fear of repercussions.”

    The theory of Charles Darwin severely damaged the idea that the Bible should be understood in a literal manner in the eyes of many people but now more and more scientists are questioning Darwin's theory:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...nism-statement
    One would have thought that the Christian Church had learned by now not to pit itself against "science," particularly when there is no need!

    If one believes in God directed creation, the mechanics (instantaneous vs evolution) and the timelines (6 days vs 4 billion years) should be of minimal theological concern!

    Whatever Darwin's deficiencies, the geological record and carbon dating are not going to lend themselves to a literal interpretation of Genesis!

  19. #15
    Over 2000 post club way 2 go's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,208
    Thanks
    2,132
    Thanked 1,438 Times in 815 Posts

    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    418460
    Dinosaur soft tissue





    --



    * "65-million" Year Old T. rex Soft Tissue: The T. rex photos above are actually old news, whereas all the latest published journal papers, through 2014, are listed chronologically, below. As for these photos though, North Carolina State University discovered this original biological tissue from a supposedly 65-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus Rex thighbone, with transparent and pliable blood vessels containing red blood cells. See these and other T. rex photos at Smithsonian Magazine and MS-NBC, and see an early Nat'l Geographic report. Famed paleontologist Jack Horner of Montana State University worked the excavation site. In a 2011 development, ten leading universities and institutes including Harvard, the University of Manchester, and the University of Pennsylvania published in PLoS One, a peer-reviewed journal, that they had verified that presumed dinosaur material is indeed original biological tissue from a dinosaur! Creationists refer to dinosaurs as missionary lizards for many reasons including:
    - the short-lived Carbon 14 everywhere including in dinosaur bones
    - the 521-year half-life of DNA that helps date the actual age of fossils containing dinosaurian genetic material, and
    - the mostly left-handed amino acids that should be equally right and left-handed if they were "Jurassic", and
    - the research on Egyptian mummies that established 10,000 years as an upper limit for how long original biological molecules could survive. Interestingly, the renowned evolutionist PZ Myers ridiculed our Real Science Radio program by repeating what had been a widely-discredited secular hope that the "soft-tissue" dinosaur finds were "biofilm" contamination from bacteria. But as 60 Minutes shows and Bob Enyart sums it up, "This is dinosaur."

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to way 2 go For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 14th, 2019),Right Divider (February 20th, 2019)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us