If evolution is wrong, that says nothing of whether there's a god.
What creationists know
- Thread starter Carico
- Start date
It actually shows how desperate many people are to deny the bible.
Claiming that apes can breed humans is more desperate than any ancient claims of man's origin. But since the flesh and bones of man decay into dust, that proves that man is composed of dust. But again, since man wants to believe he's smarter than God, then he'll continue to come up with even more desperate and hilarious explanations for the existence of man. In fact, I just heard one on the Discovery Science Channel, man came from Martians. :roflmao:: That claim came when scientists have found some evidence of life on Mars. So again, the imagination and speculation are what's considered evidence in the scientific world. The term "mad scientist" wasn't coined for nothing. Is that gobbledegoop included in your sermons to animals?
Where did you get the false notion I call myself an animal?
Do you think there is a difference between humans and apes? or not? If not, then you consider yourself an animal. If so, then I commend you for your powers of observation.
But that begs the question of why you asked if I preached to animals? or don't you really have anything worthwhile to add to the discussion so you thought you'd make a joke. So which is it?
The Discovery Institute was set up specifically to push the Creationist line.
It has zero scientific credibility.
Technically, less than zero, for if they said that they had proven the common ancestry of dogs, most scientists would suspect that they had done no such thing due to their flawed track record with basic reasoning, methodology and honest representation of scientific material.
And the "list of scientists" is a long-running joke, with something like less than 10 of them having any experience in general biology or geology. To counter such a riduculous list, Project Steve was started.
Project Steve has 963 actual scientists who have to have the name Steve (or some equivalent, given gender and language), who agree with this statement:
If you think that the side with the longer lists of scientists wins (which is not a scientific posistion) then Project Steve and Evolution wins. If you think that the side with more scientific support in biology wins, then according to census data and the makup of the list, then a minimum of 50,000 biologists agree with the Project Steve statement, since the Project Steve rules reject 99% of scientists who aren't named Steve -- while the "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" is a crude attempt to actually count anyone willing to sign their statement and represent themselves as a scientist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism
And the "list of scientists" is a long-running joke, with something like less than 10 of them having any experience in general biology or geology. To counter such a riduculous list, Project Steve was started.
Project Steve has 963 actual scientists who have to have the name Steve (or some equivalent, given gender and language), who agree with this statement:
If you think that the side with the longer lists of scientists wins (which is not a scientific posistion) then Project Steve and Evolution wins. If you think that the side with more scientific support in biology wins, then according to census data and the makup of the list, then a minimum of 50,000 biologists agree with the Project Steve statement, since the Project Steve rules reject 99% of scientists who aren't named Steve -- while the "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" is a crude attempt to actually count anyone willing to sign their statement and represent themselves as a scientist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism
Last edited:
Do you think there is a difference between humans and apes? or not? If not, then you consider yourself an animal. If so, then I commend you for your powers of observation.
It begs the question of why you are afraid to answer the question.
So do human bodies.
If they're on dirt at the time. Otherwise they decay into or onto whatever they're in or on.
Last edited by a moderator:
StrangerInAStrangeLa Otherwise they decay into or onto whatever they're in or on.
Into and onto are not synonyms you know. The end product of decay is components of dirt. Whatever it is on is liable to get nasty and may get caught up in the process if it can. Decay bacteria are hardy souls and none to picky.
If its in some one instead, that would be digestion and defecation, but the dirt wins in the end.
Into and onto are not synonyms you know. The end product of decay is components of dirt. Whatever it is on is liable to get nasty and may get caught up in the process if it can. Decay bacteria are hardy souls and none to picky.
If its in some one instead, that would be digestion and defecation, but the dirt wins in the end.
And, btw, Carico, I listened to one of the podcasts from the Discovery Idiot House, in which a so-called professor of sociology attempts to promote Intelligent Design. His first and foremost claim is that, science isn't a democracy, and one must be invited to that elite group.
Case closed.
Case closed.
Actually since this is an evasive answer then of course, it's you who doesn't answer questions.
The pot calls the toilet black.
Particularly when this "list" is comprised mostly of people who aren't working in biology or disciplines related to research that involves biology, geology or the other sciences that inform evolutionary theory.
Indeed, many of them aren't even "scientists" which puts the DI in a position of being referred to as liars.
It amounts to an appeal for popularity, and a poorly constructed one at that, since if one considers how many actual scientists there are working in the fields of biology, geology, astronomy, etc., then even if each were an actual scientist (and most are not) then this would be representative of only a small handful of people which is consistent with what one might expect, statistically, from group dynamics. A small percentage will always be kooky, cranks, and crackpots -regardless of their educational degrees (sometimes because of them).
To put it into perspective, one need only look at the number of "Steves" that have signed a list that say they support and agree with evolutionary theory and *are* actual scientists. Every single one.
That number is currently up to about 900, which correlates statistically to over 900,000 scientists who support evolution and agree that evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological and geological sciences.
If you take out of the DI's list the non-scientists your left with a couple hundred (lets say 300 to be extremely nice) of real, honest to goodness scientists. That leaves the ratio to 3 out of 900 who think their godditit. Statistically, I would have thought the number of kooks and nutjobs to be much higher. So, in a way, the Discovery Institute's (neither an institute nor about discovery) list gives me renewed confidence in scientific discourse.
I wonder if creationists are doing more to hurt their cause than enhance it? Very tough in this scientific age. They not only face constant ridicule but become somewhat isolated from mainstream living. It does appear that they are making fools of themselves and would benefit by keeping their knowledge of things private. If they continue on I wonder how much of an embarassment they will become to organized religion. Especially those that have adjusted their beliefs to suit scientific discovery.
As an atheist I prefer to let them continue. They do more good for atheism than not. I especially like it when they include Holy text. At minimum the credibility of such texts is questioned. So I hope they keep going, the world kind of needs them.
As an atheist I prefer to let them continue. They do more good for atheism than not. I especially like it when they include Holy text. At minimum the credibility of such texts is questioned. So I hope they keep going, the world kind of needs them.
Fringe people, if it's even true. No legitimate scientist disagrees with evolution. They may differ on certain elements of it, but evolution as a theory is almost universally accepted.
Truth be told, I'd like to see the credentials of these people, because I don't put it past a Christian movement to flat-out lie.
Oh, and being a chemist, mathematician, computer scientist, or physicist does not mean you're qualified to form a dissent against evolution.