Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks Mensa, Matadora and others. Eusebius is valuable in putting the best objections to evolution there are. It is clear that they point to the questions about the origins of life bur, like Polystrates, before they were proven by evidence Not to be evidence for a Biblical Flood, were not a problem for evolution because there was an equally good explanation from the deep -time geology standpoint.
Apart from that, the valid objections are all those that evolution knows about. In fact they are not objections in the sense of bringing evolution into question, but questions that evolution needs to answer.
All the videos I looked at are by people who don not understand evolution and do not want to. They are irrelevant.
All the rest - trying to adapt the Bible to the facts only proves evolution - not the Bible. saying 'god made them that way' is not objections to evolution - it is reasons to push away the evidence.
And the ongoing and rather bewildering failure to understand that "Macro -evolution" is nothing to do with species -interbreeding, but is simply "Micro" going on for hundreds of thousands or millions of years.
I don't believe they can't grasp this - it purely that they don't want to.
Thanks Mensa, Matadora and others. Eusebius is valuable in putting the best objections to evolution there are. It is clear that they point to the questions about the origins of life bur, like Polystrates, before they were proven by evidence Not to be evidence for a Biblical Flood, were not a problem for evolution because there was an equally good explanation from the deep -time geology standpoint.
Apart from that, the valid objections are all those that evolution knows about. In fact they are not objections in the sense of bringing evolution into question, but questions that evolution needs to answer.
All the videos I looked at are by people who don not understand evolution and do not want to. They are irrelevant.
All the rest - trying to adapt the Bible to the facts only proves evolution - not the Bible. saying 'god made them that way' is not objections to evolution - it is reasons to push away the evidence.
And the ongoing and rather bewildering failure to understand that "Macro -evolution" is nothing to do with species -interbreeding, but is simply "Micro" going on for hundreds of thousands or millions of years.
I don't believe they can't grasp this - it purely that they don't want to.
While I understand all life came from the cosmos, I find it silly to think man has more in common with a pile of dirt than a primate we share 98% of our genetic make-up with and understanding that there is simply a missing link that will be found and understood eventually as science progresses.
This should make it easier for anyone to choose from the "list".
Quote:
The list of signatories, as per December 2011. From a quick glance at the list the Texas A&M University seems vastly over-represented and close to being a hub for creationism (16 signatories signed as faculty or retired faculty, as well as 10 signatories listed as receiving their Ph.Ds from the institution). Georgia Institute of Technology is rather well represented as well (9 signatories listed as faculty), as is the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico (10 signatories listed as faculty); by comparison, a well-known creationist university such as Cedarville "only" had five signing faculty members (though the real numbers turn out to be far higher, since many Cedarville faculty seem to prefer to sign with their degree-awarding institution instead). Note that, apart from David DeWitt, the signatories among the Liberty University faculty tend not to mention their affiliation but rather the institution that awarded them their degrees. The same applies to Oral Roberts University.
Another striking thing about the list is the sheer number of signatories who have made PR efforts on behalf of creationism, including outreach efforts such as writing books targeted at children or students, and how few of them have actually attempted to do anything resembling research related to evolution or intelligent design.
Note also that many of the signatories are listed by the institution where they obtained their Ph.Ds, which does not indicate any current affiliation. So, for instance “Alfred G. Ratz, Ph.D. Engineering Physics, University of Toronto” does not currently have any affiliation with the University of Toronto, and Google does not reveal any current affiliation for Ratz whatsoever. In fact, relatively quick searches reveal that a very large percentage of the signatories have no academic affiliation at all; the number of biologists actively researching biological issues even remotely related to evolution can be counted on one hand.
Note also that deceased signatories are not removed from the list, and not consistently kept track of, something that further contributes to inflating the number of signatories. Signatories who are known to have died since signing are marked with "†" (and include far more than the ones actually noted as deceased on the original Discovery list), but there may be more than the ones actually marked as deceased here. A large percentage of those signatories who do have a research record are retired.
Scroll down to the List section and you get a nice summary of who is really a scientist and if they have any published work citing their scientific objections to Evolution.
And the ongoing and rather bewildering failure to understand that "Macro -evolution" is nothing to do with species -interbreeding, but is simply "Micro" going on for hundreds of thousands or millions of years.
I don't believe they can't grasp this - it purely that they don't want to.
I'm not dealing with microevolution but rather macro. I thought you could figure that out by my constant request for proof humans evolved from a single cell. To me, that is macroevolution. And for that, not one shred of evidence has been forthcoming. And neither has any evidence for all plants and animals having come from a single cell been forthcoming.
Yeah! That's the ticket! Scientists are just dodo brains in lab coats. Hundreds of thousands of totally brain-dead scientists around the world all falling for the ruse that is evolution. What a buncha' knobs!
When every REALLY clever person on the planet knows for a fact god built a mud man and rib woman and simply made the rest of life LOOK like it evolved -- just to have a good laugh at those bozo scientists!
HAHAHAHA!!
Sorry but that is a fallacy that if everyone believe it, it must be true. That is the argumentum ad populum.
Nor does it prove Creationism if everyone believes it.
God didn't make anything look like evolution. It is just men who don't want God in the picture of anything and whose consciences have been cauterized who believe God was not involved in creation. They make up the philosophy called Evolution which is nothing but the religion of Naturalism.
Then you have made my point for me, rather than objected to it. Because you are still adding nothing to it but your own subjective appreciation of it. "Hero" for example is not a thing. It is a subjective appraisal. So as I say, we already have a word for everything which is "everything" and if you want to re-label that "god" then you are just doing so out of a fetishism for the subjective appraisal that use of the word gives you.
It smacks of quite the same vacuousness that we see when people say "I am not religious, I am spiritual". Those people too are saying nothing much at all, save to try and elevate their world view subjectively in some way. As if they are somehow more in touch with the world, the universe, the human condition / spirit, or anything else that.... say.... someone who merely identifies as "Atheist" or "Humanist".
It is little more than a wish not to be written off as a nothing by not being theist like most other people. A way to say "Oh no I am not one of those, I am somehow more in touch with life than THAT lot" when in fact no such reality reflects this. I, as what people insist on labeling "Atheist" though I myself do not use that term or identify with is....... am no less in touch with life, love, the universe or being "spiritual" than any practitioner or purveyor of woo or new age nonsense out there.
This has been explained to you many times before Nozz. It seems you still don't "get it". I'm sorry...it must not have been simplified sufficiently to enable you to be able to understand. I'll try to do better with it this time:
"God" is not a name...it is a title. Nothing and/or No one is named "God". It is a title that can be assigned to any entity that one perceives as such.
Nothing and/or No one is ever "re-labled" God.
Just as, nobody is "re-labeled" Hero. The "Hero" is still whatever they are (fireman, soldier, emergency medical worker, very helpful person, etc)...and they are still named whatever they are named (John Doe, Jane Smith, etc)...they are NOT "re-labled" in a way that takes away any other identifier. "Hero" is ADDED, as per the perception to be such. The same with God(s). Even the Religious Deities that are titled as God are still known as who/what they are...Jehovah, Allah, Ra, Thor, Zeus, Odin, etc. They are not "re-labled" God...and then no longer known to be who/what they are.
That's the way titles work. Like the title of some political office, or military rank, or some other designation...that does not divest them/it of any other identity.
Examples: The "Champion(s)" of some sport can be referred to as "Champ", or "The Champ"...but just because they possess that title, does not mean the team or person(s) have been "re-labled" Champion, and now that precludes any other identifier, such as the team name of the name of the individual.
Barack Obama is "titled" President...not "re-labled" President. Nobody is ever so ignorant to complain that, "We already have a name for Barack Obama and that is Barack Obama and if you want to re-label him "President" then you are just doing so out of a fetish for that word".
So...just because we have names/words for people or things...that does not somehow proscribe adding the title "God" to those people or things if one perceives them as such.
What it is about this concept you don't understa....OH, WAIT, I KNOW!!....it's your Godophobia affliction!! *SNAP!!* Of course that's what it is!! And that keeps you from acknowledging that people and things can be titled God by anyone that perceives them as such! Because, if you acknowledge that...God(s) necessarily exist. And you CAN'T have that, now, can you?!!!
Quote:
Not a bit of it. The analogy fails utterly. There is no reason on offer, certainly not from you, to suggest I lack any intuitions or perceptions. The only difference I see is I do not have to artificially elevate mine using linguistics to make it sound like something other than it is. I have done nothing but merely acknowledge the sheer lack of meaning and utility in using the word "god" for things we already have words for.
That linguistic awareness says absolutely nothing at all about how you, I, or anyone else differ in terms of our perceptions, awareness or intuitions. It just means I seemingly have no need to convince myself, or others, that it is something more than it is. The world is awesome and wonderful and magical enough without my need to artificially elevate it, or my appreciation of it, to myself or others, merely for show. Or to try and convince myself that I have access to intuitions or perceptions of it that others lack. I am just not that vacuous myself. YYMD.
Yes Nozz, it does. It not only *suggests* it, it *proves* it. If you have that normal perception...than you wouldn't be lacking as you do.
Just like the blind person lacks the ability to perceive things through sight. If they weren't lacking...they'd be able to see like MOST people can.
People that can see aren't trying to "elevate themselves" or "convince themselves" in any way...or feel that they have "access to perceptions" that those who are blind are lacking. They simply possess the ability to see like most people can...while a few just happen to be blind and don't have that ability. Even the blind understand that...and are not critical of peoples' descriptions of the things they see as some kind of hubris on their part, because those have an ability they don't have. And the blind aren't so ignorant to claim the sighted are conceited or lying about having abilities they don't have.
The vaaaaaaast majority that can perceive God just have that normal ability. That a few others don't, isn't some reflection on the able for trying to put on a "show" by perceiving something a few others can't. It is just a normal ability that, unfortunately, some lack.
Once you get hip to that...you will come to a greater understanding of your rare deficiency.
Now let’s look at his dumb reasoning. He says there’s no way to go from a Fish to an Amphibian without adding new information. The thing he does not understand is that the genes were already present they just needed to be turned on. That’s just another nifty little thing to know about genes...they are either turned on or off.
Hmm, let's get this straight before we go on: You are actually saying that the original single celled amoeba had every gene in it which was for all the plants and animals and humans prior to them magically appearing from that single cell?
I'm not dealing with microevolution but rather macro. I thought you could figure that out by my constant request for proof humans evolved from a single cell. To me, that is macroevolution. And for that, not one shred of evidence has been forthcoming. And neither has any evidence for all plants and animals having come from a single cell been forthcoming.
Which scientist cited in the list link in the OP said that? Where is the link to that scientist's work? Remember, that is the topic of this thread.
False claim as all of your other claims. You have not posted one single scientific objection to Evolution.
Not one.
A 2011 Gallup survey reports, "Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God.
I would bet today that it's now 1-2 out of 10.
It's wonderful to see this number so low and dwindling.
I'm sorry to have to break this to you in such a blunt way but the truth doesn't become a lie if eventually no one believes it.
Also, it is in no way lending credence to the false religion called evolution if the numbers dwindle for believing the Bible is not to be taken literally.
I have actually posted many scientific objections to evolution. Where have you been?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
