Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Scientists Question Darwinism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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  The biologists with doctorates in biology or a related discipline would be fired, would lose their funding, and would not be published in "peer reviewed" journals if they didn't preach the evolutionary theory religion.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

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by jgarden View Post
      the geological record and carbon dating are not going to lend themselves to a literal interpretation of Genesis!

      Billions of Dead Things

      You see, if there really was a global Flood, like the Bible says, we should find billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. And that is exactly what we find! The floodwaters ripped up miles of sediment, re-depositing it in layers. Organisms got trapped and buried, turning into fossils.

      There is no need for millions of years to form the rock layers. The Bible’s history concerning the Flood explains it!


      Carbon-14

      Carbon-14 dating is a method, based on unprovable assumptions about the past, used to date things that contain carbon (e.g. fossils). It can only give maximum ages of around 50,000 years and yet C-14 has been found in fossils and diamonds thought to be millions and billions of years old respectively.

      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

      Comment


      • #18
        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.

        Comment


        • #19
          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?

          Comment


          • #20
            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?

            Comment


            • #21
              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

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
                An interesting quote as it is technically correct and yet does not say what you imply it does. Life did not arise from mutation and natural selection, those came afterward.
                The quote is speaking about the "origin of life" and "cells":

                “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.”

                How do you think that life began?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                  The quote is speaking about the "origin of life" and "cells":

                  “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.”

                  How do you think that life began?
                  Life beginnings are to be found in biochemistry. Mutation and natural selection came after that.
                  "Repubs must not allow [The President] to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress," Donald Trump

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                      [I]“I think more scientists are realizing the limitations to Darwinism, specifically in regard to the origin of life and the complexity of the cell.
                      In the same sense that scientists are realizing the limitations to geology, specifically in regard to the nature of semiconductors.

                      In general, theories are not very useful for explaining things they aren't about.

                      However, as we learn more about the complexity of the cell, scientists are beginning to realize how random mutations and natural selection (and occasionally, endosymbiosis) account for the way it is structured.

                      Would you like to learn about some of that?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                        you should understand that a somewhat larger percentage of people with doctorates unrelated to biology, don't accept evolution. For the obvious reasons.
                        Yes, their livelihood does not depend on believing in evolution, so they are much more free to go against the consensus when the consensus is obviously wrong.
                        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

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Barbarian observes:
                          you should understand that a somewhat larger percentage of people with doctorates unrelated to biology, don't accept evolution. For the obvious reasons.


                          Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
                          Yes, their livelihood does not depend on believing in evolution,
                          Since you already learned that scientists who don't accept evolution keep their jobs and get published, that's probably an important clue of you.

                          so they are much more free to go against the consensus when the consensus is obviously wrong.
                          Or their lack of understanding of the subject makes error easier for them.

                          One of those.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                            you already learned that scientists who don't accept evolution keep their jobs and get published
                            We already addressed that attempt at deception.
                            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.
                            The truth, which you want to deny, is that the vast majority of biologists will not go against the evolutionary theory because their livelihood depends on supporting the consensus of the evolutionary theory.
                            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

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Barbarian observes:
                              you already learned that scientists who don't accept evolution keep their jobs and get published

                              Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
                              We already addressed that attempt at deception.
                              I didn't say you were being deceptive. You were just misinformed. I even showed you several examples that showed you were wrong. Would you like to see them again?

                              The truth, which you want to deny, is that the vast majority of biologists will not go against the evolutionary theory because their livelihood depends on supporting the consensus of the evolutionary theory.
                              As you learned, biologists like Michael Behe, Kurt Wise, Michael Denton, and many others deny Darwin's theory and still have jobs in academia, and publish in journals. No point in denying it. Wise was taken on as a PhD candidate by Stephen Gould, who knew Wise's beliefs.

                              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 pointed out that it was a bad idea try the "Look how many biologists don't accept evolution" tactic, when so very few of them don't.

                              Looks like a pretty foolish approach, doesn't it?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                                Barbarian observes:
                                you already learned that
                                Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                                0.3% of biologists with doctorates in biology or a related discipline don't accept evolutionary theory.
                                keep their jobs and get published
                                Yes, and you can't keep claiming that 0.3% is a large enough percentage to establish it as a general rule.
                                Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                                Looks like a pretty foolish approach, doesn't it?
                                Yes, trying to claim that 0.3% is a large enough percentage to establish a general rule is a pretty foolish approach.
                                You should stop doing that.

                                The truth, which you want to deny, is that the vast majority of biologists will not go against the evolutionary theory because their livelihood depends on supporting the consensus of the evolutionary theory.
                                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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X