Nonsense.
Reasoned arguments come from those who spend their time studying the issues. There is a standard debunked creationist claim that Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.
Of the 480,000 scientists in the earth and life sciences, only 700 consider "creation-science" a valid theory. Yup, that means 99.85 percent of researchers in biology and the life sciences support the theory of evolution. That's just in the US. In the rest of the developed world, it's more than 99.9 percent.
CA111: Scientists reject evolution?
More facts and less fundamentalist blathering would go a long way where your comments are concerned.
I would be curious why the 700 or so that would give a creation theory any validity came to that conclusion.
My guess is that most of the "700 club" are so indoctrinated that they would HAVE to at the very least fall back on FAITH to reach that conclusion.
I can see how one tenth of one percent could still be under the grip of personal peer pressure and fear. There are a lot of religious people that care deeply what their spouses and family believe and fear reprocussions if they go against the feelings of those close to them...not to mention the personal fear of what their eternal future may hold if they piss off god by siding with 99.9 percent of scientific humanity against the chance there is an eternal life no matter what the emperical evidense.
I don't even see a fear factor, to be honest, at least from any professional standpoint. Any biologist that can prove Darwin and the last century and a half of evolutionary science is flat out wrong and that life doesn't evolve is getting a Nobel Prize at the very least. He'll have his pick of institutions to go to because every single one will be fighting to get him. He'll have an almost endless amount of grant money flowing to him for research, not to mention book deals, public speaking gigs, getting to be on every single talk show.
I'm a physics student. If I can prove Newton or Einstein or Clerk-Maxwell or any other giant on whose shoulders I am standing was wrong, the sky is my limit. But I won't be doing that because all those people's work has stood up to countless tests. If evolutionary theory has stood up to 150+ years of scrutiny, it isn't going anywhere.
As far as the whole idea that they are doing God's work in trying to undermine science, or at least not make it any worse, I don't know. I know that self-rationalization is a powerful tool and can lead people to forget their training, forget how to reason, forget logic. Gerry Bouw got a PhD in Astronomy from Case Western Reserve University. He is also a Geocentrist. I'm fairly certain the works of Copernicus and Kepler were mentioned at least once, but if it contradicts the Bible, it is wrong regardless of what the evidence shows us. If a trained astronomer is willing to turn his back on the science he learned because his Holy Book isn't in agreement with the science it isn't inconceivable that True Believer Holly Roller biologists won't do the same in their field.
One cannot demonstrate that an unobservable phenomenon based on a metaphysical presupposition is false scientifically. Unlike the more immediately quantifiable and predictably repeatable concerns of physics, for example, the issue of biological origins is tied to a series of significantly more complex historical events and potentialities that do not readily lend themselves to the calculi of mathematics.
In the face of such a thing, one can only assert an alternative account that is rationally compatible with the evidence. With regard to biological origins, the regnant opinion of the scientific community disregards the latter out of hand as it asserts abiogenesis and evolution as assumptive facts. What we have here is a gaggle of minds that are as closed as a slammed-shut door. It's not merely about science; it's about a certain philosophical bias that stupidity disregards ontologically inescapable extrapolations derived from the exigencies of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness.
The contents of your posts are the stuff of argumentative stupidity and ignorance. You're not qualified to talk about what is and is not asserted in the Bible about physical cosmology as informed by the discoveries made and the principles extrapolated by the giants of physics, astronomy and astrophysics. I'm not aware of any disputes between what the Bible asserts and what the very best of science has asserted in this respect since Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton, especially. In fact, the latter affirms what the Bible asserts.
You. Don't. Know. What. You're. Talking. About. Boy.
What 700 Club indoctrinated you?
Moreover, the regnant theories regarding the relationship between space and time, and the geometry of gravity; the laws of quantum physics regarding these very same concerns at the atomic and subatomic level; as well as the prevailing cosmological model of the Big Bang: all these things are perfectly compatible to what the Bible asserts to be true. Indeed, they explain a number of assertions found in the Bible about the substance, the mechanisms and the processes of God's creation.
Geocentrism?! Are you kidding me? Virtually all of the giants before the Twentieth Century were Christian theologians as well, including the leading progenitor of modern scientific methodology Francis Bacon. Are you under the impression that they were conflicted?
Or do you always argue against the straw men of laymen believers because . . . well, you're more comfortable playing in the sand box with your intellectually bigoted and ill-informed beliefs?
Monkey see no truth, hear no truth, speak no truth.
The actual contents of the Bible are light years beyond your ken.
The Bible doesn't assert geocentrism, you metaphysically blind and historically illiterate number cruncher. It was the Medieval, Roman Catholic Church that posited the certainty of the Ptolemaic Model and Aristotelian physics of geocentrism.
Apparently, you're still taking your cues from the extra-biblical constructs of prescientific hermeneutics, discarded centuries ago.
Now as for that 150-plus-year-old tradition of biology you go on about, which is predicated on the scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of metaphysical naturalism and doesn't actually predict much of anything at all beyond the tautological banality that what survives survives: evolutionary theory amounts to the unobservable contention that all of biological history is an unbroken chain of a natural cause-and-effect speciation and is predicated on an unqualifiable common ancestry. It's a model of speciation gratuitously superimposed on the tangible evidence. It's arguably compatible with the chronology of the paleontological record, but not with the empirically verifiable contents of that record in terms of transitional forms.
What if the all of biological history is in fact a series of creative events and extinctions? Guess what? The evidence would look precisely like the empirically verifiable contents of the paleontological record!
In the meantime, consider the following:
First, evolutionists dismissed the "flat earthers" who pointed out the general lack of what should be a vast array of unmistakable intermediate forms in the fossil record, while at the same time the former also advanced the notion of punctuated equilibrium, which attempts to account for that very lack of tangible evidence.
Then evolutionists claimed that so-called vestigial organs constituted the best evidence for their theory, but that bit of arrogance appears to be unraveling in the face of recent medical discoveries, but in any event, such expressive phenomena are a common aspect of microspeciation within well-established species, not necessarily the stuff of macroevolution.
Recently, evolutionists have claimed that endogenous retroviruses constituted the very best evidence for their theory, but now we are finding that ERV's were not initially harmful or necessarily the left-over junk of a common ancestry; but elemental, viral material that were passed via ingestion from one well-established species to another that could not possibly be directly related. They are in fact intricately fine-tuned components that perform vital regulatory functions . . . just like a vast array of beneficial bacteria.
This potentiality was anticipated and argued by the "flat earthers" who recognized that the evolutionist's belief was teleological in nature and scientifically presumptuous.
Gee wiz.
And creationism and ID are not real science, because, supposedly, they have no real predictive power. Will someone please explain what predictive power evolutionary theory has given the fact that its predictions arise from a premise in which evolution is already assumed to be true? Is evolutionary theory argued from the evidence or imposed on the evidence? —M.D. Rawlings
Oh, look! Here's some more evidence that most atheists simply believe what they're told without ever bothering to know anything about the pertinent facts of the scientific research on chemical and biological evolution for themselves, starting here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...ves-metapysical-nauralism-12.html#post8969437
