This here is a list of many scientists and PH.D.s of numerous subjects from Genetics to Molecular Biology to Marine Geology
Radiology, Biomedical Engineering, Chemistry, Nuclear Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Bioengineering, Immunopharmacology, Geoscience, Neuroscience, Pharmacognosy, Physiology, Kineseology, Plant Pathology, Microbiology, Molecular Biophysics, Mathematical Physics, and more, who agree that:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.� This was last publicly updated December 2011. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.
Are these scientists all frauds?
Are these people all motivated by personal beliefs over objective evidence?
Are they all being dishonest?
Is their view on the matter unscientific?
Do they have basis for their claim to reject the majority opinion?
Are they being more honest than the majority concensus who accepts that the Darwinian (or "Neo"-Darwinian) approach can assertively be used to define the characteristics of life?
Is there evidence that the majority concensus is using that these PH.D.s and scientists are unaware of or ignoring?
Are they evidence that there is plenty of dissent on the issue of whether Macro-evolution is a "fact"?
Can one just brush off their opinions if the majority disagrees with them?
Is it fair to conclude that their dissent might be based on an objective, empirical examination of the available data and findings?
Is it fair to conclude that those who believe that Neo-Darwinian views CAN assertively account for the diversity of life may be just as biased (i.e. coming from a "naturalistic humanism" viewpoint) in which they base their belief on their pre-determined conclusion?
Is it safe to say that "Macro-evolution" is not a 100% agreed upon fact upon Professional scientists even if the majority support such an idea?
pax wrote:
Darwin never dealt with the origin of life, He only dealt with the diversity of life.
That is twice now that a Christian has had to correct you on what Darwinism is.
Have you ever read Darwin?
While it is true that Darwin never spoke of the origin of life, the hypothesis of abiogenesis offers a scientific framework that can explain it through purely naturalistic processes. Abiogenesis is the process by which nonliving material becomes living material.
Your very own citation says that physics and chemistry alone cannot explain life. Don't you remember you sent me the video?
You clearly didn't understand the video... This deals with feedback in the system to which produces order and control. It's still very much a part of physics and chemistry..It's still electromagnetic / physical phenomenon governed by simple rules.. So of course you attempt to throw the video back at me by quote mining it, and likely from not watching the entirety of the video on the secret life of chaos to which discusses evolution at the end of the video.. You actually know what these videos mean? Yep, no ID required to explain bio-diversity or evolution, and that ID requires these things to even be possible itself! So it's interesting you did not pay attention and latched on to something you could try to quote mine.
You have continuously sent me stuff that you havent bothered to view yourself.
Wrong... Unlike you, I actually understand what's being discussed. And what's worse, is that these same governing principles apply to cognitive systems..
You couldn't even get your last three post right and now your doing what I told you not to do and bombard me with a bunch of stuff you haven't even read.
Nope, this would be your problem as you continue to quote mine out of context.
You think all this stuff is empirical because it has a title.
Now you are just appealing to emotion and ignorance..
You also sent me stuff that had nothing to do with irreducible complexity and mistakenly thinking that it did because you saw the word reducible in the title.
Incorrect.. All of this deals with the subject.. Order from chaos deals with the subject. Please try again.
You referred me to an algebra Journal that had nothing to do with the subject.
Again this is an utter fail at understanding the subject...
I guess you saw a word in there that you thought pertained to the subject but dealt more with high school math.
Highschool math can alone explain the fail of the argument of IC.. Learn something about subtraction and divide..
You couldn't even get the information on the Caldwell case right and cited the wrong case and di so with great bravado.
Neither did you.. And apparrently you used it as poor means to attack the credibility of someone's science.. Yeah, you aren't at all dishonest here.. /sarcasm.
Then you said that IC had been debunked yet could provide any evidence and couldn't even give a cohesive argument on the TTSS Apparatus.
[youtube][/youtube]
IC, I see is debunked.. Removing proteins is like removing oxygen from the human brain.. We can reduce both functionality and complexity.. I don't even need to discuss the TTSS in length to disprove IC. You do realize the basic argument of Behe is that everything existent is IC.. He's attempting to use this to prove "creationism"...And yet it's so easily destroyed. Perhaps you can be the first creationists to tackle the complexity of cognitive systems and the fact that they are subject to reducible complexity?
And to top it off, you send me a video that admits that physics and chemistry cannot account for life which is what I have been saying along. I'm sorry but as for the rest. I don't believe that tornados cause order. They cause destruction.
Incorrect... Physics can not predict results of chaotic systems.. Physics can give the formula of a system with feedback, but it can not predict the outcome with certainty.. This has nothing to do with the argument that physics can't explain life, or that chemistry can't explain life.. It does, it just can't predict the future out come.. If you don't understand these subject, please don't bother posting on them.
Quote:
First off, it's pure speculation. The ten remaining proteins that Miller speaks of are not the same. Thats right. Not the same. They are homologous, meaning similar but not the same, and when pushed, even he admitted this fact, and a fact I might add he constantly omits.
It's not relevant...
Oh yes I can. 5:00 Into video Miller Admits that these proteins are indeed not the same. They are homologous and if Behe would not have brought it up, Miller would have continued to mislead.
Again not relevant to disproving IC.. And you then have to explain IC in where he has disproved IC. Behe makes wild claims he never even tested. He just assumes IC and then gets owned when someone demonstrates it to be false. I can use pretty much any example including a mouse trap and disprove it. I can take the atoms of a living organism and have them have their own functionality... Removing any protein what so ever will suffice to disprove IC.. Removing just 1 will suffice.. Having an atom short will suffice to disprove IC.. How these form during reproduction will suffice to disprove IC.
I told you several times to keep it to one subject at a time and be able to explain it in your own words. Bombarding me with books and articles is not impressing anyone.
Me? Oh no, that would be your issue.. Quote mining being your biggest problem thus far here.
Last edited by TheJackelantern on Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:11 pm, edited 4 times in total.
They usually say something like "In trillions of years, it's possible that all the nails and screws and boards and concrete will fall in the exact right spot with the right fit."
I'd place my bets that we'd be more likely to have a team of Monkeys with typewriters hammer out all of Shakespeare's works, which I've actually heard some say could likely happen.
Here's a thought, let's wait and see what people actually do say and then respond to that! I realize it's harder than making up their arguments for them, but on the other hand it's also usually more effective.
Well, what would you say?
What I did say, in what way is a house analogous to a universe, and how do you know?
It seems to me that we know what a house is for, and all its parts contribute to that purpose. What is a universe for, and how do you know?
Ok. You'd rather not say. Its a free country.
O.K., you'd rather not answer my directly responsive and relevant. question. O.K., it's a free country.
Last edited by Autodidact on Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
They usually say something like "In trillions of years, it's possible that all the nails and screws and boards and concrete will fall in the exact right spot with the right fit."
I'd place my bets that we'd be more likely to have a team of Monkeys with typewriters hammer out all of Shakespeare's works, which I've actually heard some say could likely happen.
Here's a thought, let's wait and see what people actually do say and then respond to that! I realize it's harder than making up their arguments for them, but on the other hand it's also usually more effective.
Well, what would you say?[/quote] What I did say, in what way is a house analogous to a universe, and how do you know?
It seems to me that we know what a house is for, and all its parts contribute to that purpose. What is a universe for, and how do you know?[/quote]
Ok. You'd rather not say. Its a free country.[/quote]
O.K., you'd rather not answer my directly responsive and relevant. question. O.K., it's a free country.[/quote]
I did answer your question. This thread is on Darwinism and Darwin never applied his theory of natural selection to the universe, or to the origin of life, for that matter. Besides, prebiotic evolution is a contradiction in terms.
Suppose I showed you a house and told you that all the nails, screws, lumber, insulation, plaster, shingles, concrete, trim mouldings, doors, windows and whatever else were in that house, just happened to be in the right place at the right time and assembled themselves into the beautiful building you are now looking upon.
What would you say to that?
They usually say something like "In trillions of years, it's possible that all the nails and screws and boards and concrete will fall in the exact right spot with the right fit."
I'd place my bets that we'd be more likely to have a team of Monkeys with typewriters hammer out all of Shakespeare's works, which I've actually heard some say could likely happen.
Here's a thought, let's wait and see what people actually do say and then respond to that! I realize it's harder than making up their arguments for them, but on the other hand it's also usually more effective.
Well, what would you say?
What I did say, in what way is a house analogous to a universe, and how do you know?
It seems to me that we know what a house is for, and all its parts contribute to that purpose. What is a universe for, and how do you know?
Ok. You'd rather not say. Its a free country.
I think it is being questioned as to why your request is even relevant. I believe that if you can show it is relevant, you will get the answers that you desire.
Can you show any relevancy?
For example: It seems to me that we know what a house is for, and all its parts contribute to that purpose. What is a universe for, and how do you know?[/quote]
Who said anything about a universe? The topic is on Darwinism, and Darwinism says nothing about the universe
. Oh, so your analogy is between a house and...what exactly? A living organism?
O.K., we know what a house is for. What is a living organism for?
Now Darwinism would have me believe that a bunch of nucleotides and enzymes and liptides and proteins and various other things just happened to all come together at the right time and place and form themselves into a cell.
No, that is not at all what the Theory of Evolution says. Now I have a question. Do you not know what it actually says, or are you deliberately distorting it?
If the former, I would be happy to explain it to you.
So, analogy of a house is even simpler than what Darwinism proposes, for the house does not become alive, but the Darwinist asks me to believe that the various pre-biotic elements do indeed come to life.
No, Darwin's theory had absolutely nothing to say on that subject. You are mistaken.
In other words, it is far easier to believe that a house just assembles itself, than it is to believe that a bunch of stuff floating around in some primordial soup assembled itself.
Since the theory we are discussing has nothing to do with either primordial soup or self-assembly, your comment is misplaced. Perhaps you would like to start a thread about this subject, which has nothing to do with this thread.
