Scientists Question Darwinism

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
“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/2019-02-11/over-1000-scientists-sign-dissent-darwinism-statement
 

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
“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/2019-02-11/over-1000-scientists-sign-dissent-darwinism-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!
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
Dinosaur soft tissue



t-rexbloodvessels-cells.jpg


--

t-rex-connective-tissue-schweitzer.png


* "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."
 

Jerry Shugart

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

The subject under discussion concerns whether people were evolved or whether they were created by God.

What say you?
 

Kit the Coyote

New member
Well, we know that taxonomically, biologically, and genetically Humans are part of the family Hominidae, we are Great Apes. If Humans are a unique creation separate from that family then one or more of those links should not exist, particularly the genetic link.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Well, we know that taxonomically, biologically, and genetically Humans are part of the family Hominidae, we are Great Apes. If Humans are a unique creation separate from that family then one or more of those links should not exist, particularly the genetic link.

I think that many scientists today are also questioning whether or not the family Hominide came about from mutation and natural selection:

“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.”
 

chair

Well-known member
...

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

Exactly. People get bogged down in the mechanism of evolution, and where life came from. But the plain facts are that the living creatures
of today are not the same as those of millions of years ago.
 

Kit the Coyote

New member
I think that many scientists today are also questioning whether or not the family Hominide came about from mutation and natural selection:

“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.”

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.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
- 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.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
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.

 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
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?
 
Top