"A scientific Dissent from Darwinism"

[Shermana]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=660

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]

Please, please, please explain to me how you would account for the diversity of life we see on this planet, both now and throughout the fossil record. I really want to know.

Through speciation. It is a Latin word. You did not invent it. Noah did not take a lab and a terrier and a wolf and a fox and a coyote aboard the Ark. He took a pair of canines, male and female, and from them come all the different groups of canines that you see today. We Christians believe that there are limits to how far a "kind" can speciate. Ask any breeder of animals. They will tell you: "We can go this far and no farther."

If you have some irrefutable extraordinary proof that a canine can give birth to anything other than a canine, we would love to examine it.

[Clownboat]

So, Shermana, do you still dispute that Biologists regard humans as a species of ape?

I certainly do. I am a human being with a human nature, which is utterly different than an ape's nature. Most importantly, among all the creatures and plants on this planet, only human beings have a rational soul. Also, we are the only beings created in the image and likeness of God.

You can revert to being an ape if you want. I will continue to be a human being.

Could you please provide empirical evidence for the following.

1) We have souls
2) We have rational souls
3) We are the only beings that have rational souls
4) And, other than claims from a religious book, we are in the image and likeness of God. How you know, and what does that mean?

See? You constantly confuse religion and science to the point where you cannot differentiate between them. You ask me for empirical proof of my religious dogma but exclude yourself from having to provide empirical proof of your scientific dogma.

1, 2 & 3 are known through scholastic philosophy. They can be philisophically proven, but not empirically proven. 4 I know through divine faith.

Now, here is one for you.

Prove to me that you exist.

I suggest you read the rules. Read. specifically 'rule 5', which states your argument has to be supported by evidence.

And, 1 , 2 & 3 , as far as I can see, are not 'known through scholastic philosophy'. They are 'Unsupported claims by philosophy.. there is a difference.

AND, I have yet to see any reason to accept 'Divine Faith' as evidence. I can not find any difference between the statement of 'Divine Faith' and proclaiming 'Because I said so'.

I will note you continually avoid attempting to back up your claims.

Alrighty.

Here is a section of the Summa Theologica which might be helpful to you.

http://sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum100.htm

So, your 'evidence' is a bunch of writings from some guy from 2000 years ago.

Who basically made 'arguments' that we could not test either the premisses or the conclusions, and made arguments up with a predetermined conclusion.

That is evidence for the belief in the soul. He is starting with the ASSUMPTION that the soul exists..

Since he is starting with that assumption, and it can not be shown that his assumption is true, then, no, his musings are not evidence that the soul exists.


All in all, your 'evidence' that the soul exists ends up to "some old guy from way back when assumed so'.

Saint Thomas Aquinas lived in the 13th century. He is probably the most brilliant mind that has ever been created by God.

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard (the part in bold).

Anyways, I have given you my proof as to why I believe what I believe -- and a mighty fine proof it is! But, of course, you reject it, as you reject every proof that does not conform with your predisposed beliefs.

I challenge you to show you speak truth that you have given any proof. Opinions are not proof.

So, I think I will just put you on ignore like I did with Heresis and Joey, as conversing with you is a pointless waste of time.

Will you put everyone on ignore that challenges you on a debate to show that the claims you make are true?

You may be more comfortable conversing in the Holy Huddle Room. There you claims will not be challenged and you will be free to preach until your heart is content.

God bless you, my friend, and may you find your way out of your darkness and into His glorious light.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

[Autodidact]

Please, please, please explain to me how you would account for the diversity of life we see on this planet, both now and throughout the fossil record. I really want to know.

Through speciation. It is a Latin word. You did not invent it. Noah did not take a lab and a terrier and a wolf and a fox and a coyote aboard the Ark. He took a pair of canines, male and female, and from them come all the different groups of canines that you see today. We Christians believe that there are limits to how far a "kind" can speciate. Ask any breeder of animals. They will tell you: "We can go this far and no farther."

You agree that speciation happens? And I assume that happens because of descent with modification plus natural selection? But that there is a limit, never observed or explained, as to how far that goes? Is that right? Can you explain what a "kind" is, which I assume is where you think that limit is?

Do not presume to speak for all Christians. You speak for yourself and those who agree with you only. Millions of Christians believe nothing of the kind.

If you have some irrefutable extraordinary proof that a canine can give birth to anything other than a canine, we would love to examine it.

If it did, ToE would be false. It's posts like this that cause me to ask, do you not understand ToE? Or are you deliberately misrepresenting it?

[Clownboat]

Please, please, please explain to me how you would account for the diversity of life we see on this planet, both now and throughout the fossil record. I really want to know.

Through speciation. It is a Latin word. You did not invent it. Noah did not take a lab and a terrier and a wolf and a fox and a coyote aboard the Ark. He took a pair of canines, male and female, and from them come all the different groups of canines that you see today. We Christians believe that there are limits to how far a "kind" can speciate. Ask any breeder of animals. They will tell you: "We can go this far and no farther."

Please define "kind" so I can examine your statement. Why did you use the word "kind" instead of ... "bergley gook"? Unless I am mistaken, "kind" is just a creationist word. Again, please define "kind" and not give what you think are examples.

If you have some irrefutable extraordinary proof that a canine can give birth to anything other than a canine, we would love to examine it.

The only people that say odd things like this are creationists. The TOE does not say that an animal will give birth to a different species of animal. It is easy to say evolution is not possible when evolution is not understood, and you just demonstrated that you do not understand evolution.

Can I predict your next argument (even though it also is inaccurate)? If we came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?

If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?

[pax]

So, I think I will just put you on ignore like I did with Heresis and Joey, as conversing with you is a pointless waste of time.

Will you put everyone on ignore that challenges you on a debate to show that the claims you make are true?

You may be more comfortable conversing in the Holy Huddle Room. There you claims will not be challenged and you will be free to preach until your heart is content.

Yes. I put those on ignore who do not wish to engage in reasonable conversation, but who just want to rant and rave. I have no problem with a reasonable challenge to anything I say. What I do have a problem with is those who attack without reason and have no desire to either learn or teach.

How do you prove someone's mind is the most brilliant mind created by God?

O. Pardon me. It was the "created by God" part that you took offense to.

You think science is superior to philosophy. You are dead wrong. Philosophy is the Queen and science is the handmaiden. All the scientific facts in the world ain't worth diddley-squat without a theory to bring them into focus. What do you think a theory is? It is the application of a philosophy to a jumble of random facts.

Here. You want proof of that? Consider this: Every scientific fact that you know convinces you there is no God. Every scientific fact that I know convinces me there is a God.

How can that be? Answer: Same facts. Different philosophy. The difference between me and you? I don;t confuse the facts with my philosophy.

Here is something else I notice about atheists. They have a bigger problem with me believing in God that I do with them not believing in God. Evangelists turn green with envy on beholding the zeal of an atheist to convert others to their atheism.

You want to talk? Fine. Let's talk.

You want to proselytize? I am not interested. Go knock on the next guy's door.

You want to just attack anything and everything I say? You can go on ignore, as well.

[Clownboat]

So, I think I will just put you on ignore like I did with Heresis and Joey, as conversing with you is a pointless waste of time.

Will you put everyone on ignore that challenges you on a debate to show that the claims you make are true?

You may be more comfortable conversing in the Holy Huddle Room. There you claims will not be challenged and you will be free to preach until your heart is content.

Yes. I put those on ignore who do not wish to engage in reasonable conversation, but who just want to rant and rave. I have no problem with a reasonable challenge to anything I say. What I do have a problem with is those who attack without reason and have no desire to either learn or teach.

I wish to engage in reasonable conversation, however, I find it reasonable to ask someone that they speak the truth when they make claims. Do you consider that an attack?

How do you prove someone's mind is the most brilliant mind created by God?

O. Pardon me. It was the "created by God" part that you took offense to.

No offense was taken. I asked if you could show that you speak the truth in regards to the claim that your god created him. I was a Christian for 20 years, so I already know that you cannot show that you speak truth in this regard, but I did hope that it might prevent you from making such statements on a debate forum.

You think science is superior to philosophy. You are dead wrong. Philosophy is the Queen and science is the handmaiden. All the scientific facts in the world ain't worth diddley-squat without a theory to bring them into focus. What do you think a theory is? It is the application of a philosophy to a jumble of random facts.

Here. You want proof of that? Consider this: Every scientific fact that you know convinces you there is no God. Every scientific fact that I know convinces me there is a God.

If you are being truthful, please examine this and show how it convinces you that there is a god.

How can that be? Answer: Same facts. Different philosophy. The difference between me and you? I don;t confuse the facts with my philosophy.

You could be right, but I am going with the evidence that I have seen on this thread alone and am going to say that you don't understand these same facts. Again, this is not meant to be an attack. As evidence, I remind you that you asked for evidence of an animal giving birth to a different "kind" (whatever that means) of animal. That is not what evolution says, so is it possible that you do not understand the facts?

Here is something else I notice about atheists. They have a bigger problem with me believing in God that I do with them not believing in God. Evangelists turn green with envy on beholding the zeal of an atheist to convert others to their atheism.

I'm not an atheist by the way, and I don't see how this is true or relevant.

You want to talk? Fine. Let's talk.

Woo hoo! Can you talk to me about all the different animals in the fossil record that are no longer around and explain how they came about. I would really like to hear your opinion on neanderthals ect... too.

You want to proselytize? I am not interested. Go knock on the next guy's door.

You want to just attack anything and everything I say? You can go on ignore, as well.

I hope you can tell that I do not mean to attack when I say that "I don't think" you understand evolution.

[Autodidact]

You think science is superior to philosophy. You are dead wrong. Philosophy is the Queen and science is the handmaiden. All the scientific facts in the world ain't worth diddley-squat without a theory to bring them into focus. What do you think a theory is? It is the application of a philosophy to a jumble of random facts.

Your opinion is noted, however, I direct you to the thread title. This thread is about science. I understand that you don't think much of science, which is certainly your prerogative. btw, May I have your computer?

btw, within science, no, that is not what a theory is.

Here. You want proof of that? Consider this: Every scientific fact that you know convinces you there is no God. Every scientific fact that I know convinces me there is a God.

Here you are again doing philosophy. This is supposed to be a thread about science. Are we done then?

How can that be? Answer: Same facts. Different philosophy. The difference between me and you? I don;t confuse the facts with my philosophy.

I beg to differ.

Here is something else I notice about atheists. They have a bigger problem with me believing in God that I do with them not believing in God. Evangelists turn green with envy on beholding the zeal of an atheist to convert others to their atheism.

You're way, way, off topic.

You want to talk? Fine. Let's talk.

O.K., let's talk about evolution. After all, it is the topic of the thread.

You want to proselytize? I am not interested. Go knock on the next guy's door.

You want to just attack anything and everything I say? You can go on ignore, as well.

Do you only want to hear from people who agree with you?

So, got anything at all to say about the thread topic?

[pax]

No offense was taken. I asked if you could show that you speak the truth in regards to the claim that your god created him. I was a Christian for 20 years, so I already know that you cannot show that you speak truth in this regard, but I did hope that it might prevent you from making such statements on a debate forum.

Prove that God created Aquinas? How about this. You prove to me that Aquinas actually existed, and then from there I can easily prove that God created him.

Woo hoo! Can you talk to me about all the different animals in the fossil record that are no longer around and explain how they came about. I would really like to hear your opinion on neanderthals ect... too.

If that is really what you want to talk about, then why are you challenging the existence of God? Why are you posting this:

If you are being truthful, please examine this and show how it convinces you that there is a god.

Maybe because the end game of all your conversations is to proselytize for your atheism?

Anyways, we shall see. Let's talk about fossils.

How was a fish fossilized in the act of giving birth?

[Autodidact]

How was a fish fossilized in the act of giving birth?

No, no, no, you misunderstood the finding. The fish didn't fossilize in the act of giving birth, it just died and fossilized, and was pregnant at the time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7424281.stm

You want to know about how fossils form?

[otseng]

Yes. I put those on ignore who do not wish to engage in reasonable conversation, but who just want to rant and rave.

Moderator Comment

You are free to ignore anyone you want. But you are not free to make personal comments about those that you ignore.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.