Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[SUTG]

Just imagine how difficult it is for a atheist PhD scientist, to come to the realization that everything that been taught about 'evolution'...and everything they believed was not consistent with the evidence... and that the Biblical account was best fit to the evidence.

That would be something! But you act as if they would just need to reject 'evolution' at that point. Rather, they'd have to reject science wholesale.

Another thought experiment: Just imagine how difficult it is for a atheist PhD scientist, to come to the realization that everything that been taught about 'evolution'...and everything they believed was not consistent with the evidence... and that the Earth was actually flat!

AIG Statement of Faith

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

I do give them credit for saying this. But they seem to pretend otherwise from what I remember reading from their site and the writings of their team. Although I haven't done so for over ten years, and don't plan on doing so again.

ICR: What We Do

"The Institute for Creation Research is unique among scientific research organizations. Our research is conducted within a biblical worldview, since ICR is committed to the absolute authority of the inerrant Word of God. The real facts of science will always agree with biblical revelation because the God who made the world of God inspired the Word of God."

I like how they keep calling themselves a "scientific research organization" as if it will stick someday. I'm sure it makes the "research" done by their "scientists" much easier given that they know in advance how all of the "experiments" will turn out.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That is HILARIOUS.

Darwin went from tiny variations in finch beaks to anything goes. That's great "science" there.

Um, if that's your understanding of how the theory of evolution or even science in general works then that's not hilariously exactly but it is laughably ignorant. Face it RD, it's your own belief system that starts with a conclusion, rejects all evidence that contradicts it and tries to shoe horn the data to fit with it. Science simply doesn't work that way.

 

[Arthur Brain]

And positively fascinating to watch.

There is that...

 

[Jose Fly]

I do give them credit for saying this. But they seem to pretend otherwise from what I remember reading from their site and the writings of their team. Although I haven't done so for over ten years, and don't plan on doing so again.

I like how they keep calling themselves a "scientific research organization" as if it will stick someday. I'm sure it makes the "research" done by their "scientists" much easier given that they know in advance how all of the "experiments" will turn out.

That's knowing their audience and is part of the con. As you spotted, on one hand they'll say up front that they operate according to a decidedly anti-scientific framework, but then they turn right around and refer to themselves as a "scientific research organization". Now to you, me, and everyone else who isn't predisposed to fundamentalist thinking, that's a clear contradiction and fatal flaw.

But to a fundamentalist, it doesn't even register. They see these organizations as standing up for God's Word, which means they give them the benefit of the doubt and such contradictions are just glossed over.

And the creationist organizations know this, count on it, and exploit it.

 

[Right Divider]

Um, if that's your understanding of how the theory of evolution or even science in general works then that's not hilariously exactly but it is laughably ignorant. Face it RD, it's your own belief system that starts with a conclusion, rejects all evidence that contradicts it and tries to shoe horn the data to fit with it. Science simply doesn't work that way.

I understand science just fine. Darwinism is pseudo-science pretending to be science.

 

[SUTG]

That's knowing their audience and is part of the con. As you spotted, on one hand they'll say up front that they operate according to a decidedly anti-scientific framework, but then they turn right around and refer to themselves as a "scientific research organization".

I did a pretty deep dive on a bunch of this stuff about ten years ago. AIG and ICR were still around back then. The big names I remember from the scene were Ken Ham and Kent Hovind (who was hilarious in a debate), and Michael Behe was also popular because the YECs thought he gave them some much needed credibility with the thorny issue of science. I also remember reading a few incoherent scrawlings aboutbaramins(add that one to your laugh lexicon). There were a few other guys I no longer remember.

Although a lot has changed, much seems to have remained the same. They're still asking why we don't see creatures walking around that are half snake and half giraffe, and they still seem to love the platypus. And they're as keen as ever to avoid any discussion of science, since they know where that is bound to lead and they're not really too happy with it.

 

[SUTG]

I understand science just fine.

Really?
How old is the sun?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Really?
How old is the sun?

Which came first, the sun, or the galaxy it's in?

 

[Right Divider]

Really?
How old is the sun?

It completely depends on what metric you use.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I understand science just fine. Darwinism is pseudo-science pretending to be science.

Well, no you don't else you wouldn't repeat the same erroneous tripe. If Darwin's theories were simply a load of 'anything goes' then any such theory would have been kicked into touch long since. You reject the theory of evolution because it doesn't tie in with your strict, religious beliefs. It has to be rejected along with all over evidence that supports an old earth also. That isn't science and neither is 'creationist science'. Science itself is neutral, personal beliefs don't enter into it. Any theory put forward is subject to stringent processes, discarded if evidence refutes such, modified depending and the process is continual. If there wasn't sufficient evidence to support the ToE then it wouldn't be globally accepted as it is today.

 

[Right Divider]

Well, no you don't else you wouldn't repeat the same erroneous tripe. If Darwin's theories were simply a load of 'anything goes' then any such theory would have been kicked into touch long since. You reject the theory of evolution because it doesn't tie in with your strict, religious beliefs. It has to be rejected along with all over evidence that supports an old earth also. That isn't science and neither is 'creationist science'. Science itself is neutral, personal beliefs don't enter into it. Any theory put forward is subject to stringent processes, discarded if evidence refutes such, modified depending and the process is continual. If there wasn't sufficient evidence to support the ToE then it wouldn't be globally accepted as it is today.

The totally unbiased evolutionist scientist in his/her white smock... right? :french:

 

[Arthur Brain]

The totally unbiased evolutionist scientist in his/her white smock... right? :french:

Um, no. Seriously, how are you not getting this? The ToE came about because of the evidence that supports it. As with any other theory it wouldn't pass testing if the evidence was lacking. The peer review process would have done away with it if it didn't pass muster. Scientific theories don't come about through biased belief systems, that's why they're prone to testing before they become accepted and you'd have to be a major crackpot conspiracy theorist to think the ToE came about through bias on a global scale?!

:AMR:

Face it dude, you're the one with the bias here. You can't accept anything that doesn't correspond with your belief in a young earth, therefore automatically deride it. Not everybody else is so fettered, many Christians included.

 

[Greg Jennings]

• I invent a theory
• I find evidence that supports my theory
• I reject any evidence that does not support my theory
• I am an "evolutionist" murder solver

Good! So you agree that facts from the present can be used to interpret the past.

You're almost open to science now! That's how geology and paleontology works !!

 

[Right Divider]

Um, no. Seriously, how are you not getting this? The ToE came about because of the evidence that supports it.

No, it did not. You can repeat the mantra all that you want.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Ok... let's look at genetics. Your beliefs in upill evolution is not an answer. Let's start with a few simple questions.

1. How can natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person, per generation in a population with a birth rate of about 2?

2. What evidence from genetics shows a organ such as an eye can develop from a complex eye spot, into a sophisticated veryebrate vision system. Remember... genetics, and not your beliefs.

1. Explain 1 in detail

2. What evidence would suffice? Since you are well aware of the documented transitional stages we can observe today, similar to the fins-to-legs transition, you are obviously rejecting that extremely solid evidence. I need to know what you want me to give you exactly

 

[Greg Jennings]

No, it did not. You can repeat the mantra all that you want.

So why did all of geology/biology once believe as you, then after hundreds of years of gathering evidence, REJECT your theory ??

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, it did not. You can repeat the mantra all that you want.

It's not a mantra, it's simply the truth, your religious sensibilities notwithstanding. Look RD, science isn't interested in personal beliefs, it is only concerned with evidence. If the evidence didn't support evolution it wouldn't be globally accepted, simple as that.

 

[Arthur Brain]

So why did all of geology/biology once believe as you, then after hundreds of years of gathering evidence, REJECT your theory ??

It's bizarre. Thunderstorms were probably thought to be magic before mankind gained knowledge of meteorological phenomena.

 

[George Affleck]

It's fascinating that you would project that onto "evolutionists", when it's actually creationist organizations that explicitly state and adhere to that sort of anti-scientific framework.

AIG Statement of Faith

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

“Darwinian theory is the creation myth of our culture. It’s the officially sponsored, government financed creation myth that the public is supposed to believe in, and that creates the evolutionary scientists as the priesthood… So we have the priesthood of naturalism, which has great cultural authority, and of course has to protect its mystery that gives it that authority—that’s why they’re so vicious towards critics.” Phillip Johnson

 

[JudgeRightly]

Scientific theories don't come about through biased belief systems, that's why they're prone to testing before they become accepted and you'd have to be a major crackpot conspiracy theorist to think the ToE came about through bias on a global scale?!

Are you trying to say that in order to be a true scientist you have to first reject God?

So these people were not scientists at all? or if they were, their theories or laws shouldn't be trusted?

Fathers of Science who Believed in the Creator God Philip Paracelsus, died 1541, Chemical Medicine Nicolas Copernicus, 1543, Scientific Revolution Francis Bacon, 1626, Scientific Method Johann Kepler, 1630, Physical Astronomy Galileo Galilei, 1642, Law of falling bodies William Harvey, 1657, Circulatory System Blaise Pascal, 1662, Probability and Calculators Robert Boyle, 1691, Chemistry Christiaan Huygens, 1695, Physical Optics Isaac Newton, 1727, Gravitation Carolus Linnaeus, 1778, Taxonomy, Modern Biology George Cuvier, 1832, Anatomy/Paleontology John Dalton, 1844, Atomic Theory

Or these (all of whom came after Darwin)?

Michael Faraday, died 1867, Electromagnetism Matthew Maury, 1873, Oceanography James Clerk Maxwell, 1879, Electromagnetic Radiation Louis Pasteur, 1885, Microbiology James Joule, 1889, Thermodynamics Lord Kelvin, 1907, Thermodynamics (preferred ID over Darwinism; see below) Joseph Lister, 1912, Modern Surgery G. W. Carver, 1943, Modern Agriculture