A list of "Scientists who are not 'evolutionists'"

[Ashles]

In this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100729) a poster called Radrook posted a familiar list:

For, um, those who tag people who aren't evolutionists as retarded, here is a list of people who are not evolutionists and who are scientist. This post is in response for a request for a list of evolutionist scientists eartlier in this thread.

Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith: Chemist / Lecturer / Creationist / Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941) / Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich / D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964) / F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry) / Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 "Golden apple" awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc. / Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company / Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford / Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages / Dr. Wilder-Smith was also a NATO three-star general. He was featured in the motion picture series ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be.

Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)
Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)
Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)
Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)
Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)
Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)
Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer
Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist
Duane T. Gish (biochemist)
John Grebe (chemist
Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
George F. Howe (botanist
D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)
James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)
Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)
Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)
Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
Frank L. Marsh (biologist)
Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist
Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)
William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist)
Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
A.J. (Monty) White (chemist
A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)
John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

As posted by Foster Zygote:
Francis Bacon died in 1626.
Georges Cuvier died in 1832. He wrote "Why has not anyone seen that fossils alone gave birth to a theory about the formation of the earth, that without them, no one would have ever dreamed that there were successive epochs in the formation of the globe."
Robert Boyle died in 1691.
Humphry Davey died in 1829.
William Herschel died in 1822.
Johannes Kepler died in 1630.
Carolus Linnaeus died in 1778. He once wrote that he wished someone would show him a single generic feature by which to distinguish humans from apes, because he could not find one.
Isaac Newton died in 1727.
Blaise Pascal died in 1662.
John Ray died in 1705.
Nicholas Steno died in 1686.
Leonardo da Vinci died in 1519.
John Woodward died in 1728.


Wow! All those guys on the list died before Darwin published Origin of Species. Then there's the fact that most of the people on that list are not biologists...

So that is instantly a reason to remove the pre-Darwin guys from the list.

I was wondering if anyone would be interested in looking at some of these other scientists to see if any of them have been involved in any research that has called any part of evolution into question, or developed any alternative theories.

In short, is there any scientific reason that they have ever provided to object to evolution, or is it simply a personally held belief that is no more relevent to their profession than if they were a baker, stationer or jetskier?

In particular there are a few on the list who, judging by their fields of study, it seems bizarre that they would not accept evolution.

[Michael Redman]

Based on the credibility of those who present such lists, perhaps the first task should be finding out whether the listed names are, in fact:

1) Real people
2) Scientists
3) Evolution deniers

Assuming, of course, that you want to get into this argument-from-authority to begin with. It would be easier if these posters would just present the arguments against, and then stay around long enough to discuss the ensuing critiques.

[Fnord]

Just because a person does not believe in evolution, it does not necessarily mean that he or she believes in creationism. It may also mean that they have not committed either way -- maybe they just don't care.

[Michael Redman]

Carolus Linnaeus died in 1778. He once wrote that he wished someone would show him a single generic feature by which to distinguish humans from apes, because he could not find one.

So I guess Linnaeus denies human evolution because we're still apes?



Duane T. Gish (biochemist)

Not Duane Gish!

[ravdin]

Just because a person does not believe in evolution, it does not necessarily mean that he or she believes in creationism. It may also mean that they have not committed either way -- maybe they just don't care.

Maybe so, but it would be awfully feeble for a scientist not to have an opinion or not to care.

[Fnord]

Maybe so, but it would be awfully feeble for a scientist not to have an opinion or not to care.


Or that the scientist does have an opinion, but does not believe it necessary to share.

[joobz]

I think you also have to account for the fact that prior to molecular biology, there wasn't a known underlying mechanism that clearly explains how mutation and natural selection result in evolution.

Shall we create a list of famous bright scientists that believed in the theory of the 4 humors? Does this prove the Humors theory?

[Foster Zygote]

I think you also have to account for the fact that prior to molecular biology, there wasn't a known underlying mechanism that clearly explains how mutation and natural selection result in evolution.

Shall we create a list of famous bright scientists that believed in the theory of the 4 humors? Does this prove the Humors theory?

That's the thing. If we limit this list to modern biologists it's not nearly as impressive looking to the scientifically ignorant and it becomes clear that scientific opposition to evolutionary theory is a small fringe movement without any convincing arguments.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Who cares what a billion scientists think?

Try thinking for yourself.
Read Darwin's Origin of Species. Read current popular texts on evolutionary theory.
Examine the evidence.
Try thinking for yourself.

[bokonon]

Well, A.E.Wilder-Smith apparently debated Dawkins back in the 80s at Oxford, so I assume he has some kind of theory. I've ordered the MP3 CD of the debate from someplace in New Zealand, so I should know something about his position in a few weeks. I'll look at some of the other names as time permits.

[cyborg]

Try thinking for yourself.

Awww man, that seems like a hell of a lot of work - can't I just get someone else to do it for me?

[sol invictus]

Francis Bacon?? Hahaha... creationists are really dumb, aren't they?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I would say remove anyone who is dead. They are not around to defend themselves.

~~ Paul

[CapelDodger]

Assuming, of course, that you want to get into this argument-from-authority to begin with. It would be easier if these posters would just present the arguments against, and then stay around long enough to discuss the ensuing critiques.

And if wishes were horses we'd all be eating steak.

As I understand Ashles, the point is to avoid constant re-invention of the wheel, and at the same time discover something about these scientists and why they're included in this creationist list. All discovery is good.

bokonon:, you've entered into the spirit of things as I see it :). A.E.Wilder-Smith : who and what is he? Done much since, has he? I'm thinking this was an Oxford Union debate, and those are sadly Philosophical affairs. Smith may have shone on the night, but who remembers him?

I'll try to do my bit as well.

[CapelDodger]

I would say remove anyone who is dead. They are not around to defend themselves.

~~ Paul

We can defend them if the creationist argument is defamatory. We know how much creationists exploit selective quotation.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So let's consider Charles Babbage. Here's something about him at AnswersinGenesis:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/babbage.asp

The only mention of "creation" is:


He was the author of many published works on mathematical and scientific topics. In 1837, he also wrote one of the Bridgewater Treatises. These were papers On the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God, as Manifested in the Creation, published by the Royal Society with money provided by the Earl of Bridgewater.
which is immediately followed by:

Anthony Hyman writes in his biography of Babbage: 'Babbage came to believe that scientific method pursued to its uttermost limit was entirely compatible with revealed religion and he wrote his Ninth Bridgewater Treatise to prove the point.'
The words "evolution" and "Bible" do not appear in the article.

It appears that Babbage was a theistic evolutionist:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA114_4.html

Wikipedia agrees:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We can defend them if the creationist argument is defamatory. We know how much creationists exploit selective quotation.
By all means (see above). I was suggesting that the Creationists remove them from the list.

~~ Paul

[CapelDodger]

Maybe so, but it would be awfully feeble for a scientist not to have an opinion or not to care.

It's in no way feeble if it has nothing to do with their field of study. Most people don't care about evolution, life presents more pressing problems. Science presents equally interesting questions.

I only get engaged because I enjoy it, and have more pressing issues under control. And it's cheap entertainment :).

[Worm]

Not Duane Gish!

The man himself.

A creationist, and a liar....well, he's certainly not an 'evolutionist' - the only question is - does he qualify as a 'scientist' ?

[Prometheus]

About Louis Agassiz:

"His finding of parallels between ontogeny, paleontology, and morphology was rapidly adopted by biologists like Haeckel and used to support evolution. Today, these parallels are known not to be exact correspondences, but the links between development and evolution remain an area of active research. Perhaps Agassiz's greatest lasting insight was the realization that paleontology, embryology, ecology, and biogeography had to contribute to any classification that purported to show the true relationships of organisms -- even if those relationships, to Agassiz, existed only in the mind of God."

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/agassiz.html

So, even though he didn't believe in evolution, himself, his work has nevertheless supported it.

[Foster Zygote]

This is a list of those who have been alive some time during the last 50 years:

Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)
Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)
Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)
Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)
Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)
Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)
Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer)
Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)
Duane T. Gish (biochemist)
John Grebe (chemist)
George F. Howe (botanist)
D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)
John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)
Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)
Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)
Frank L. Marsh (biologist)
Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist)
Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)
Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist)
A.J. (Monty) White (chemist)
A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)

This is what's left when you filter out all the people who were dead before Origin was even published or could not possibly have any knowledge from the last fifty years regarding genetic research. I must confess I was a bit surprised to discover that when doing a Google search of their names they result in links to sites like Answers in Genesis, Christian Answers, Institute for Creation Research etc. within the first few hits. Every single one of them. The only one who didn't result in such search engine hits was Wernher von Braun who listed his religious beliefs among the reasons he opposed Darwin's theory.

So what we have here is a list of Christian creationists, only seven of whom work in he field of biology in any way, who have been augmented with a bunch of famous names of people who either died before Darwin's work was even published, or died long before they could know of modern advances that confirm Darwin's theory. In attempting to convince us that a large portion of the scientific community rejects evolutionary theory, Radrook (or whomever assembled this list) has instead confirmed that only a tiny minority of scientists reject evolutionary theory, and usually for religious, not scientific reasons.

[rocketdodger]

The only one who didn't result in such search engine hits was Wernher von Braun who listed his religious beliefs among the reasons he opposed Darwin's theory.

Just the thought of someone dragging good ol' "Verner" into this debate made me laugh out loud.

[CapelDodger]

Regarding Charles Babbage and his Ninth Bridgewater Treatise (1838):

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science_texts/bridgewater/babbage_intro.htm


and the treatises in general :

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/bridgewater.html

(I've already gained from this exercise; I've discovered The Victorian Web :))

"
"The Right Honourable and Reverend Francis Henry, Earl of Bridgewater, died in the month of February, 1829 ; and, by his last will and testament, bearing date the 25th of February, 1825, he directed certain Trustees therein named, to invest in the public funds the sum of eight thousand pounds sterling ; this sum, with the accruing dividends thereon," to be held at the disposal of the President, for the time being, of the Royal Society of London, to be paid to the person or persons nominated by him. The testator further directed, that the person or persons selected by the said President should be appointed to write, print, and publish, one thousand copies of a work 'On the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God, as manifested in the Creation ;' illustrating such work by all reasonable arguments, as, for instance, the variety and formation of God's creatures in the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms ; the effect of digestion, and thereby of conversion ; the construction of the hand of man, and an infinite variety of other arguments : as also by discoveries, ancient and modern, in arts, sciences, and the whole extent of literature. He desired, moreover, that the profits arising from the sale of the works so published should be paid to the authors of the works."


Look ye upon the Templeton Prize and realise there is nothing new under the Sun.

Bridgewater died in 1829, and was already engaged in defence of what had been unquestioned dogma fifty years before. Babbage : 1838. On The Origin Of Species was yet to gestate, let alone be born.

On the title page of Babbage's treatise is this :

""We may thus, with the greatest propriety, deny to the mechanical philosophers and mathematicians of recent times any authority with regard to their views of the administration of the universe ; we have no reason whatever to expect from their speculations any help, when we ascend to the first cause and supreme ruler of the universe. But we might perhaps go farther, and assert that they.are in some respects less likely than men employed in other pursuits, to make any clear advance towards such a subject of speculation."—Bridgewater Treatise, by the REV. WM. WHEWELL, p. 334."

Towards such speculation. Such speculation as Science had already shrugged off - pointless speculation as to "first causes" and "administration of the Universe".

Before Darwin, they're already on the defensive, and evolution was part of what they were defending against. Fossils and geology shout evolution, and that point was made before Charles Darwin provided the mechanism. Erasmus Darwin was involved in the recognition of it.

This is not a weapon we should let lie idle. Recognition of evolution pre-dated Charles Darwin's masterpiece by two generations at least.

[CapelDodger]

"His finding of parallels between ontogeny, paleontology, and morphology was rapidly adopted by biologists like Haeckel and used to support evolution. Today, these parallels are known not to be exact correspondences, but the links between development and evolution remain an area of active research. Perhaps Agassiz's greatest lasting insight was the realization that paleontology, embryology, ecology, and biogeography had to contribute to any classification that purported to show the true relationships of organisms -- even if those relationships, to Agassiz, existed only in the mind of God."

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/agassiz.html

So, even though he didn't believe in evolution, himself, his work has nevertheless supported it.

(My emphasis)

It doesn't really matter what he thought was at the end of the path, what mattered to him was that he stuck to the right path, which Agassiz thought was revealed by Science. His wasn't a belief that was assaulted by observation and reason, it was one that would ultimately be revealed by it.

Not at all like creationism. Creationists believe in a textbook that already explains it all. It has some good stuff about stoning people as well.

[CapelDodger]

Just the thought of someone dragging good ol' "Verner" into this debate made me laugh out loud.

Give it a few more years and it could happen. There's some lingering sensitivity to his Nazi-pandering, and Godwin's Law still carries a sting.

[CapelDodger]

By all means (see above). I was suggesting that the Creationists remove them from the list.

~~ Paul

Like that's gonna happen :).

Creationists have opened up a long front with their scientist references, and I don't think we should feel restricted in where we strike along it. Dead, alive, got a web-site and email address, it all has potential.

[Radrook]

Just because a person does not believe in evolution, it does not necessarily mean that he or she believes in creationism. It may also mean that they have not committed either way -- maybe they just don't care.

Exactly! It is and should be as clear as day. Yet subject is continually directed toward creationism while it can be discussed from a purely logical or scientific perspective.

BTW

I never intended to include pre-Darwinian sacientists. The two lists got jumbled together after my computer crashed. Despite this explanation the accusation that I purposefully included pre-Darwinians continues. Which leads me to believe that deletion makes no difference as well. So why even bother.

[cyborg]

I never intended to include pre-Darwinian sacientists. The two lists got jumbled together after my computer crashed.

Uhh... what was the second list for then?

I find this story about as convincing as, "a dog ate my homework."

I would sure like to know how a "computer crash" is supposed to jumble lists together in such a way.

[Radrook]

In this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100729) a poster called Radrook posted a familiar list:



As posted by Foster Zygote:


So that is instantly a reason to remove the pre-Darwin guys from the list.

I was wondering if anyone would be interested in looking at some of these other scientists to see if any of them have been involved in any research that has called any part of evolution into question, or developed any alternative theories.

In short, is there any scientific reason that they have ever provided to object to evolution, or is it simply a personally held belief that is no more relevent to their profession than if they were a baker, stationer or jetskier?

In particular there are a few on the list who, judging by their fields of study, it seems bizarre that they would not accept evolution.


It seems bizarre because your premise is skewered.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here as to why I presented the list. The purpose of the list is simply to demonstrate that not all scientists subscribe to the Godless evolution theory requiring abiogenesis. Since the pre-Darwinians were believers in Gods, then it follows that they would reject an atheist theory. Nevertheless, their inclusion was accidental.

Furthermore, and as I have repeatedly stated to no avail, no specialization is needed in order to evaluate whether science is being practiced in accord with the scientific method or whether the scientific method is being violated or ignored or being applied inconsistently. Neither is specialization needed in order to detect flaws in logic when employee on behalf of a theory.

[Hokulele]

I see, an "accidental" inclusion. When I pointed out this problem, why was this your response?

Not at all, an typical childish ineffective idiotic reaction like focusing only on the pre-Darwnians and ignoring everyone else which proves NOTHING except your bias and refusal to discuss the matter rationally. But hey. Keep hammering away. Maybe if you throw a tantrum often and long enough the creationists will go away. Who knows. LOL

[cyborg]

The purpose of the list is simply to demonstrate that not all scientists subscribe to the Godless evolution theory requiring abiogenesis.

No, really?

Thanks Radrook! I was totally ignorant of this before you posted your list!

Since the pre-Darwinians were believers in Gods, then it follows that they would reject an atheist theory.

Yeah! Just like Darwin, a believer in God(s), rejected his atheist theory!

Oh wait...

Neither is specialization needed in order to detect flaws in logic when employee on behalf of a theory.

Just as well then because the logic flaws are coming thick and fast from the employee of the non-evolutionary theories. (That would be you).

[Radrook]

[
QUOTE=cyborg;3246137]Uhh... what was the second list for then?

I find this story about as convincing as, "a dog ate my homework."

I would sure like to know how a "computer crash" is supposed to jumble lists together in such a way.[/QUOTE]

Your premise seems to be that I was ignorant of the possible reaction to such an inclusion? That premise is founded on what? Your low opinion of anyone who isn't an evolutionist?
I didn't say the computer crash literally jumbled the lists. You need to be an imbecile to offer that kind of crap explanation to computer savvy people and expect them to believe it.

I meant, and it should be obvious to those who aren't inclined to jump to conclusions, that the confusion which ensued after the crash was the reason. The two lists were adjacent to each other. I had to reboot. When I rebooted I mistakenly copied and pasted both because I forgot they were meshed together. The second list was copied from the website for future reference and to facilitate faster copy and paste procedure. Now you can take issue with that as well.

In any case, the first list does provide a list of scientists who were not atheists and who nevertheles made significant contributions to science. A situation which evolutionists seem to find ludicrous and intolerable.

[kjkent1]

It seems bizarre because your premise is skewered.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here as to why I presented the list. The purpose of the list is simply to demonstrate that not all scientists subscribe to the Godless evolution theory requiring abiogenesis. Since the pre-Darwinians were believers in Gods, then it follows that they would reject an atheist theory. Nevertheless, their inclusion was accidental.

Furthermore, and as I have repeatedly stated to no avail, no specialization is needed in order to evaluate whether science is being practiced in accord with the scientific method or whether the scientific method is being violated or ignored or being applied inconsistently. Neither is specialization needed in order to detect flaws in logic when employee on behalf of a theory.You make it seem as though acceptance of "Godless evolution" is evil.

Is that your view?

[fuelair]

Who cares what a billion scientists think?

Try thinking for yourself.
Read Darwin's Origin of Species. Read current popular texts on evolutionary theory.
Examine the evidence.
Try thinking for yourself.
Surely thee jesteth!:)

[Radrook]

No, really?

Thanks Radrook! I was totally ignorant of this before you posted your list!



Yeah! Just like Darwin, a believer in God(s), rejected his atheist theory!

Oh wait...



Just as well then because the logic flaws are coming thick and fast from the employee of the non-evolutionary theories. (That would be you).

If you weren't ignorant you sure arfe doing a good job of looking that way. In fact, your Darwin statement proves you are ignorant since Dawrin didn't require atheisim to be part of his theory. Yet go about claiming he did. Now that's a humdinger of an example of illogical thought based on ignorance if I ever saw one!

BTW
Your constant mindlessly frenetic ad hominem attacks add nothing to this thread. Since they asd nothing they won't be missed. At least not by me.

[Foster Zygote]

I never intended to include pre-Darwinian sacientists. The two lists got jumbled together after my computer crashed.
That makes no sense. You're telling us that your computer "jumbled together" two lists of names without any further jumbling of individual words and letters?

Despite this explanation the accusation that I purposefully included pre-Darwinians continues.
Despite the explanation offered in this very post, in the sentence immediately proceeding your announcement that the accusations continue?

Which leads me to believe that deletion makes no difference as well. So why even bother.
The deletion makes a huge difference. Without those other famous names you are left with a small fringe group who start with a conclusion and then look for evidence to support in rather than following the evidence to a conclusion.

[Foster Zygote]

If you weren't ignorant you sure arfe doing a good job of looking that way. In fact, your Darwin statement proves you are ignorant since Dawrin didn't require atheisim to be part of his theory. Yet go about claiming he did. Now that's a humdinger of an example of illogical thought based on ignorance if I ever saw one!

BTW
Your constant mindlessly frenetic ad hominem attacks add nothing to this thread. Since they asd nothing they won't be missed. At least not by me.

You do realize that he was being sarcastic, yes? He was pointing out your erroneous statement about "godless evolution".

[cyborg]

Your premise seems to be that I was ignorant of the possible reaction to such an inclusion?

Ignorant, careless, lazy, sloppy - so many to choose from.

"Computer crash jumbles my data," - nuh uh. But anyway, you explain:

I didn't say the computer crash literally jumbled the lists. You need to be an imbecile to offer that kind of crap explanation to computer savvy people and expect them to believe it.

So it was basically a poorly worded statement then?

I could live with that...

When I rebooted I mistakenly copied and pasted both because I forgot they were meshed together. The second list was copied from the website for future reference and to facilitate faster copy and paste procedure. Now you can take issue with that as well.

If they were separate lists copied and pasted together into a single one then one might presume that one list was pre and the other post Darwin. The ordering of the final list does not suggest such a thing unless you - for some bizarre reason - copied and pasted them together in an interleaved manner.

If you gathered them from two separate websites and copied into two separate lists where the websites made no differentiation by pre and post Darwin then that doesn't work much better as far as having different lists where jamming them together would cause such an error since posting either would be sufficient.

Uh... so laziness? Incompetence? I don't think blaming the computer is fair really.

those who aren't inclined to jump to conclusions,

You have a problem with such people?

In any case, the first list does provide a list of scientists who were not atheists and who nevertheles made significant contributions to science. A situation which evolutionists seem to find ludicrous and intolerable.

Hmmm.... jumped to any conclusions recently?

[cyborg]

If you weren't ignorant you sure arfe doing a good job of looking that way.

Thanks. I aim to deceive.

In fact, your Darwin statement proves you are ignorant since Dawrin didn't require atheisim to be part of his theory. Yet go about claiming he did.

Got it!

Darwin required theism to be part of his theory. Therefore pre-Darwin creationists would accept evolution implicitly.

Therefore your list is a list of evolution supporters.

Now that's a humdinger of an example of illogical thought based on ignorance if I ever saw one!

They're the best kind don't you think?

Your constant mindlessly frenetic ad hominem attacks add nothing to this thread.

Guys - I think he's new to this trolling lark. Oh well. Time for school.

Since they asd nothing they won't be missed.

Well I never try to asd anything - nice to know that won't be missed.

At least not by me.

Breakin' my heart one sentence at a time.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Surely thee jesteth!:)

Sorrieth I am for my postingeth. I had had too much . . . mead. Yes. That's what it was -- mead. :o

[joobz]

In any case, the first list does provide a list of scientists who were not atheists and who nevertheles made significant contributions to science. A situation which evolutionists seem to find ludicrous and intolerable.
Did you poll many "evolutionists" to see if they find such a premise ludicrous? I somehow doubt any atheist/evolutionist/science buff would be shocked to know that much of science was conducted by men of faith. I think the onerous is on you to prove why you think thier faith is relevant in the first place in a discussion on evolution.

So, do you have any reason to question evolution outside your disire for it not to be true?

[Radrook]

You do realize that he was being sarcastic, yes? He was pointing out your erroneous statement about "godless evolution".

Well, if you understood what he meant and feel it deserves repetition in a more direct manner then post it and we can decently discuss it if you wish. Sarcasm, hecklings anf jecklings, snide remarkjs, mockery, veiled insults and the like I consider irrelevant to the subject and a clutter to the thread. So to prevent unnecessary clutter, at least from the vantage point of my computor screen, I weed habitual users of such tactics via my ignore option. This keeps things nicely in what I personally considere a healthful equilibrium.

[cyborg]

Sarcasm, hecklings anf jecklings, snide remarkjs, mockery, veiled insults and the like I consider irrelevant to the subject and a clutter to the thread. So to prevent unnecessary clutter, at least from the vantage point of my computor screen, I weed habitual users of such tactics via my ignore option.

Ah. Radrook has himself on "ignore".

That explains a lot.

[Radrook]

Did you poll many "evolutionists" to see if they find such a premise ludicrous? I somehow doubt any atheist/evolutionist/science buff would be shocked to know that much of science was conducted by men of faith. I think the onerous is on you to prove why you think thier faith is relevant in the first place in a discussion on evolution.

So, do you have any reason to question evolution outside your disire for it not to be true?



Your premise that I question evolution merely because I desire it to be untrue is an insult to my intelligence baesed on a faulty premise. If you really want want to discuss the reason for my opinion, why not simply request an explanation instead of barbing your statements with barely veiled insults?

BTW
The only ones who have made faith relevant to this discussion are the evolutionists themselves by repeatedly bringing in creationism despite my repeated requests that the subject be strictly kept at the logical and scientific level.

[fuelair]

Sorrieth I am for my postingeth. I had had too much . . . mead. Yes. That's what it was -- mead. :o
Mead is good in sooth (better in mouth though)!!

[cyborg]

If you really want want to discuss the reason for my opinion, why not simply request an explanation instead of barbing your statements with barely veiled insults?

You are hereby requested for an explanation - in your own words if you please. We don't really need endless cut & paste jobs.

(I am probably on ignore by now. If someone would quote me that would be dandy).

[X]

So you have a list of scientist who do not support the theory of evolution.

May I, then, counter with a far more entry-restrictive list of scientist who do support evolution?
Behold: Project Steve (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp)
A list of scientist whose first name begins with Stephen, or a dericvative thereof, and who support the theory of evolution.

What does this list prove?
Absolutely nothing. Which is precisely the same amount that your list proves.

To counter the statement made in the OP, I do not thing any of the individuals listed are retarded. Ignorant, perhaps. Willfully blind to be certain. I would also suspect that they all have non-scientific ulterior motives behind their rejeciton of evolution.

Unless you can point me to some secular scientists who do not support evolution?
There's bound to be a few.

[Radrook]

;3246289']So you have a list of scientist who do not support the theory of evolution.

May I, then, counter with a far more entry-restrictive list of scientist who do support evolution?
Behold: Project Steve (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp)
A list of scientist whose first name begins with Stephen, or a dericvative thereof, and who support the theory of evolution.

What does this list prove?
Absolutely nothing. Which is precisely the same amount that your list proves.

To counter the statement made in the OP, I do not thing any of the individuals listed are retarded. Ignorant, perhaps. Willfully blind to be certain. I would also suspect that they all have non-scientific ulterior motives behind their rejeciton of evolution.

Unless you can point me to some secular scientists who do not support evolution?
There's bound to be a few.


What was I trying to prove?
I'm not quite sure on what you mean by secular scientist.
Also, you seem to think that scientists who are not atheists or agnostics are somehow biased in their evaluation of evolution theory. Ironically, the same can be said of atheist evolutionists when it comes to objectively evaluating data. I don't think they can be trusted. In fact, their record provides amplke proof thatthey are quite capable of forgeries, illogical conclusions, double standards, and bias in their evaluations.


BTW
I have my suspicions that evolutionist scientists have other agendas beside science in their manner of interpreting data. So I guess we are similar in that respect.

[Acleron]

I can only see one "Steve" on the list.

Project Steve (http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp) had 854 "Steves" yesterday, if this list is the best the id/creationists can produce their support among scientists is very minimal.

And what happened to Dembski and Behe, don't the id/creationists consider them as scientists anymore?

[cyborg]

I have my suspicions that evolutionist scientists have other agendas beside science in their manner of interpreting data.

Such as...?

[joobz]

Your premise that I question evolution merely because I desire it to be untrue is an insult to my intelligence baesed on a faulty premise. If you really want want to discuss the reason for my opinion, why not simply request an explanation instead of barbing your statements with barely veiled insults?

Sorry, I failed to see your previous post whee you ask the question without a barb. So I'll answer it there.
I've followed your arguments, and I haven't seen anything presented that is a compelling argument.

perhaps you'd like to present one.

Start with how you discount
1.) the fossil record
2.) molecular biology describing the fundemental mechanism of evolution
3.) the phylogenetic tree
4.) How the fact that how an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that presists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree.
5.) ERVs
6.) human chromosome fusion
7.) multi drug resistent bacteria
8.) existence of RNAi
9.) Mitochondrial DNA
10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques

[X]

What was I trying to prove?

Buggered if I know. If you don't know either, then I'm not even going to try to figure it out.


I'm not quite sure on what you mean by secular scientist.

Not aligned to a literal interpreataion of a doctrine that may, shall we say, influence their views.


Also, you seem to think that scientists who are not atheists or agnostics are somehow biased in their evaluation of evolution theory.

I apologize if it came across that way. I merely intended to point out that a list of people affiliated with very conservative Christian groups may have other reasons to reject evolution than scientists from more liberal strains of belief, or with no belief whatsoever. I have no doubt that many scientists who accept evolution are religious, and most don't seem to see a conflict. But creationism is, after all, a religious belief. Thus, I must be susicious of strict adherents to these religions who proclaim that all contrary evidence and ideas are wrong.


Ironically, the same can be said of atheist evolutionists when it comes to objectively evaluating data. I don't think they can be trusted. In fact, their record provides ample proof that they are quite capable of forgeries, illogical conclusions, double standards, and bias in their evaluations.[/url]

This is true. And so far, science has exposed the frauds. That's one advantage of having so many people independantly involved. Everyone has their own ideas and interpretations. Everybody finds answers in their own way. Just take a look at some midterms from a science course. You can pick the level. I guarantee you will see different approaches from different people.


[QUOTE=Radrook;3246299]BTW
I have my suspicions that evolutionist scientists have other agendas beside science in their manner of interpreting data. So I guess we are similar in that respect.

I think Cyborg responded to this quite nicely.

[Radrook]

I've followed your arguments, and I haven't seen anything presented that is a compelling argument.

perhaps you'd like to present one.

Start with how you discount
1.) the fossil record
2.) molecular biology describing the fundemental mechanism of evolution
3.) the phylogenetic tree
4.) How the fact that how an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that presists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree.
5.) ERVs
6.) human chromosome fusion
7.) multi drug resistent bacteria
8.) existence of RNAi
9.) Mitochondrial DNA
10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques

Why not prove to me first your abiogenesis claim? If the foundation is unprovable, then all following arguments based on it are moot.

[Shalamar]

Why not prove to me first your abiogenesis claim? If the foundation is unprovable, then all following arguments based on it are moot.

Abiogenesis has no bearing on the Theory of Evolution.

[X]

Abiogenesis is not part of evolution.

Joobz is not asking you to prove anything outside of evolution.
You post, quoted in the OP, mentions evolution, not abiogenesis. As such, Joobz request seems more than reasonable.

They are not related anymore than evolution and the big bang theory are.

Just so's ya know.

[cyborg]

Yawn. This is standard run-book stuff.

1) Shift goal-posts wildly: is it abiogenesis that's the problem? Morphological shifts too absurd? How long till the Big Bang is involved?
2) Lists. More argument is better.
3) Accuse your opponents of hidden agendas, ignorance, closed-mindeness yada yada
4) "Evolution is obviously stupid you idiots. Damn I'm smart."

[joobz]

Why not prove to me first your abiogenesis claim? If the foundation is unprovable, then all following arguments based on it are moot.
Doesn't work that way. You doubt evolution, so we talk evolution.
all listed items I gave do not require abiogenesis. They simply require the existence of evolution.


Secondly, your claim that abiogenesis is the foundation of evolution, this is untrue. Evolution simlpy discusses the process of speciation and diversification of populations.

Thirdly, your claim that an argument with an "unprovable" premise renders all subsequent arguments moot is patently false.

Thermodynamics is derived off of 4 postulates, which are by definition unprovable. Does this render thermodynamics false?

Gravity describes an observation, but an underlying mechanism remains unproven. Do you doubt the existence of gravity?

The navier-stokes equation, which is the foundation of fluid mechanics and used to design airplanes, cars, piping systems, has still not been proven to be continuous and smooth under all conditions. In other words, we don't know if it is a fully valid description. Does this mean airplanes can't fly?

Newton laws of motion aren't valid in all conditions, does this mean they no longer apply?

[skeptigirl]

For, um, those who tag people who aren't evolutionists as retarded, here is a list of people who are not evolutionists and who are scientist. This post is in response for a request for a list of evolutionist scientists eartlier in this thread.

[snip] ....Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating) ....[snip]

Now the expected knee-jerk reaction to this list is an immediate
irrelevant accusation accompanied by barely repressed laughter
that these are mere creationist scientist and thast therefor they aren't really scientists because if they were they would be evolutionists.

Well, I guess in that respect we hold similar views but in opposite directions. : )Just taking the biologists or related fields because I don't have the time to waste on all these religious fundamentalists who also went to school...

Duane Gish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish)Gish's arguments against evolution have been criticized by various members of the scientific community as being incorrect. Examples include:

* Claiming there are no fossil precursors to the dinosaur,Triceratops, a claim Gish has made since 1987.[11] Examples of Triceratops precursors include Monoclonius and Protoceratops with changes in bony frill, size and number of horns predicted by the theory of evolution.[11] Gish has made other, similar errors about the fossil record, including claims about transitional forms, the fossil record for birds and the status of the Archaeopteryx as a reptile or bird.[11] Gish has rebutted this criticism,[12] which were rebutted in turn.[13]
* Claiming that Solly Zuckerman had access to modern knowledge of Australopithecus yet still stated they were not ancestors of Homo sapiens; Zuckerman's original conclusions were based on evidence available before Lucy was discovered, a fossil which revolutionized the field of physical anthropology.[11]
* Claiming that Neanderthals were modern humans of 'fully human Homo sapiens just like you and me', which Richard Trott pointed out was false given the morphological difference between modern humans and Neanderthals.[11]
* Claiming that evolution by natural selection is rendered impossible by the second law of thermodynamics.[14] The overwhelming scientific consensus is that Gish's claim is false.[15]

Gish appeared on Penn and Teller's Showtime television show ********! in 2004, stating that creation and evolution were equally scientific, that both were in fact non-scientific, offering as proof his belief that the Grand Canyon was created by the rupture of a natural dam, cutting through layers deposited during the Biblical flood. In the same episode, Eugenie Scott noted that Gish had not kept up with the relevant literature and had not done any professional research in his field since his work at Upjohn, instead producing only creationism-related work for a popular audience.




John W. Klotz (http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp1no2.htm) The entire page is about this guy's belief the Bible is a literal work. His only reference to genetic science is thin one quoting a 1950s book. Yet he claims to be a geneticist??On the other hand, I believe that the evolutionist has a major problem in describing the mechanism of evolution and also in presenting a reasonable picture of the stages of human evolution. It is simply a fact that we do not have a satisfactory mechanism for change of the degree required by the theory of evolution. By far, the vast majority of mutations are lethal. Winchester, Glass, and H. J. Muller are all agreed that over 99 per cent of all mutations that have been studied are harmful in some degree: (Albert M. Winchester Genetics, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1951 p. 290; Bentley Glass "The Genetic Hazards of Radiation" Science 126, 1957, 243; H. J. Muller "Genetic Damage Produced by Radiation" Science 121, 1955, 837).




I can't read the Russian links but this comment on talk origins addresses the false listing of this name on the Creation Science list. I notice the guy died last year as well. Maybe he can't defend the accusation now. Leonid Korochkin (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/nov05.html)While Korochkin is a Christian (and wrote several books on Christian topics), and may be (according to an unconfirmed source) a member of some sort of "creation society", by no means he is a YECist or even an anti-evolutionist.

It is true that Korochkin is critical of neo-Darwinism. He holds an opinion opposite to that of Dobzhansky - he wrote that if the evolutionary theory was stricken from biology, the biological science would not change significantly and while the new substantive gap would appear, it wouldn't be catastrophic (his point was that genetics played the role of biology's backbone, not evolution). See his 1999 article at http://magazines.russ.ru/novyi_mi/1999/4/nauka.html

In the same article he also writes:

"The more organism is specialized, [i.e.] the higher the step of the evolutionary ladder, on which it stands, the more these changes are deeper and irreversible."

"... erythrocytes of the mammals, who evolution-wise are higher than the birds ..."

In another article, written in 1982 [sic] for a Soviet journal ( http://www.goldentime.ru/hrs_text_025.htm ), he criticized Darwinism, and some claims about natural selection. He also engaged in some quote mining in favor of the claim that transitional fossils are almost lacking. This article is very unprofessional, especially coming from such a good scientist (which he really is). In it he frequently refers to Soviet structuralist L.S. Berg, which shows where he sympathies lie.

Finally, in 2002 review article "Ontogeny, evolution and genes" ( http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/JOURNAL/NATURE/07_02/ONTO.HTM ) Korochkin again makes some polemical points against the STE, but the article is clearly written from an evolutionary perspective. In fact, he begins one sentence: "Being an adherent of the macromutation evolution...".

Here's another passage:

"Looking attentively at different evolutionary lines and spotting similar forms (wings for birds, bats, insects, ancient reptiles; likeness of wings in some fish) one begins to suspect the existence of a program in the very DNA structure of philogeny (and ontogeny), as if it was directed through some "pre-formed" channel; about these matters Berg was talking in his nomogenesis theory."

It is clear then, that while Korochkin's leanings are "heterodox", and he may be sympatethical to some kind of ID theory, and may be even supporting of creationism in "let a hundred flowers bloom" way (the infamous D. Kuznetsov once thanked Korochkin for assistance), he is not a YEC or even an anti-evolutionist.

Why, then, AIG claims the opposite?




Lane P. Lester (http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_4a.html), in his own words.My own speculation is that Darwin's ideas were immediately adopted because they gave fallen men a justification for ignoring their Creator, even for denying His existence. But by the end of the 19th century, other research had so clearly confirmed the principles discovered by Mendel that evolutionists had to incorporate these principles into their theories. They did so, and have continued to do so, on a very selective basis. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution.

Having said the above, I do not plan to say much more about evolution. I would prefer to talk about creation and the testimony of genetics to the power and glory of the Creator. Too long have creationists concentrated on pointing out the fallacies of evolution, and spent too little time demonstrating the truth of creation. Indeed with some justification, the evangelists of evolution prefer to call us anti-evolutionists rather than creationists.


I'm tired of this exercise. This is religious proselytizing, not science.

[joobz]

;3246351']Abiogenesis is not part of evolution.

Joobz is not asking you to prove anything outside of evolution.
You post, quoted in the OP, mentions evolution, not abiogenesis. As such, Joobz request seems more than reasonable.

They are not related anymore than evolution and the big bang theory are.

Just so's ya know.
You beat me to it. I take too long to type.

[skeptigirl]

I think Radrook's list of people is worth looking at - this seems to be a combination of at least 2 lists that Creationists wheel out quite regularly.

If I start a new thread about this would anyone be interested in having a look at each one individually to see if any of them have at any point in their career produced any work or been involved in any study that would be considered as having any weight to question evolution, or provide any alternative.

In the future when this list is dragged out again it would be nice if there was a thread we could direct people to.

Or, you know, if not then we don't have to. It's all good.

ETA: Have set up the thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101253)I'll copy my post over there. I looked up a couple. But I'm pretty sure talk origins has dealt with the whole list. Not to mention the Steve project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve).

Looks like this thread is already derailed. Maybe the Mods can help.

[UnrepentantSinner]

So I guess Linnaeus denies human evolution because we're still apes?

Even more interestingly Linnaeus considered chimpanzees a species of human - Homo troglodytes.

[Radrook]

;3246338']Buggered if I know. If you don't know either, then I'm not even going to try to figure it out.


I only ask because I keep posting my reasons and they are continually ignored. Then I am accused of trying to devastate the evolution theory with the list. So since each is forming his own explanation of what my motive was and rejects my explanation, then any explanation of my motives is as good as the other.


Not aligned to a literal interpretation of a doctrine that may, shall we say, influence their views.

Source does not affect truth.

When one comes across a scientist and his opinions, one has to evaluate his claims objectively. If the scientist's arguments adhere to the principles of the scientific method, then they can be accepted. If they violate them then they are rejected. There is no way that
you or anyone else can be mislead in the manner you seem to be suggesting. Actually, what you really are saying is that you don't trust a certain group of scientist regardless of what they say because they are religious. That is a subjective evaluation and does not conform to the objectivity required of a person who sincerely seek truth no matter what its source might be.


I apologize if it came across that way. I merely intended to point out that a list of people affiliated with very conservative Christian groups may have other reasons to reject evolution than scientists from more liberal strains of belief, or with no belief whatsoever. I have no doubt that many scientists who accept evolution are religious, and most don't seem to see a conflict. But creationism is, after all, a religious belief. Thus, I must be suspicious of strict adherents to these religions who proclaim that all contrary evidence and ideas are wrong.

Again we come to religion and creationism which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the reason why I don't accept evolutionary claims. This is becoming tiresome.


Ironically, the same can be said of atheist evolutionists when it comes to objectively evaluating data. I don't think they can be trusted. In fact, their record provides ample proof that they are quite capable of forgeries, illogical conclusions, double standards, and bias in their evaluations.[/url]

This is true. And so far, science has exposed the frauds. That's one advantage of having so many people independently involved. Everyone has their own ideas and interpretations. Everybody finds answers in their own way. Just take a look at some midterms from a science course. You can pick the level. I guarantee you will see different approaches from different people. I think Cyborg responded to this quite nicely.


I know most sciences and scientists try to keep things from getting out of hand. However, evolutionists have gained a reputation for letting things get out of control. But this in itself doesn't provide a reason for rejecting evolution ideas. I never claimed that it did. In fact, I only initially brought up the dishonesty issue in response to a poster who claimed that evolutionists are the epitome of honesty. In response I offered proof to the contrary whereupon it was taken as the reason why I reject evolution and from that point on all my explanations to the contrary have been ignored.

[Radrook]

You beat me to it. I take too long to type.

I am referring to atheistric evolution not the supposed God initiated one.

If indeed abiogenesis is completely unrelated to non-intelligence-guided evolution, then why the evolutionist objection to creationists? There is a constant attack against people who believe in an intelligent guiding force on this forum. Which of course, by default means that abiogenesis is seen as the means for the emergeance of life. No initial life = no evolution. So one is impossible without the other. Impossibility of abiogenesis= impossibility of evolution since no life would have initially emerged upon which the evolutionary process could commence.

[cyborg]

If indeed abiogenesis is completely unrelated to evolution, then why the evolutionist objection to creationists?

1) They lie.
2) They're stupid.
3) They deny evolution.

[cyborg]

I know most sciences and scientists try to keep things from getting out of hand. However, evolutionists have gained a reputation for letting things get out of control.

What in the **** is that supposed to mean?

[Shalamar]

If indeed abiogenesis is completely unrelated to evolution, then why the evolutionist objection to creationists?

They are indeed unrelated. The hypothesis of Abiogenesis, and the Theory of Evolution have nothing to do with each, save biology.

The objecttion to creationists, is that creationism is not science. Creationism requires a supernatural creator, which can not be proven, or disproven. Now, some of it depends on which flavour of creationism you are talking about.

There's 'Theistic Evolution', where a creator created life, a couple billion years ago, and then evolution took over, carefully guided, so to speak. Most scientists roll their eyes at this, but pretty much seem to let it pass.

The real bile, and hatred is given to young earth creationists. Where the answer tends to be 'God did it'. The earth was created 6000 years ago, and all creatures on earth now have always been this way. Anything that may suggest that the earth is older, or that evolution took place, was put there as a test from god, or placed by satan, or some other hooey.

Creationists tell a great deal of lies. They cherry pick information, claim that they are scientists as well, (Though the rather overwhelming lack of evidence... of any kind hurts them) but they pretty much use the bible as their proofs. And they want this taught in public schools. Thus the bile. When one lies about belief, and science, it gets many many people VERY upset.

[joobz]

If indeed abiogenesis is completely unrelated to evolution, then why the evolutionist objection to creationists?
You ignored my other points, and are confused by the order of events. Creationists hate evolution.

also you said.
Again we come to religion and creationism which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the reason why I don't accept evolutionary claims. This is becoming tiresome.
You are contradicting yourself. If you have a complaint with evolution, state it. Otherwise, it seems your ONLY complaint is a creationist argument.


So, please answer my original question:

Start with how you discount
1.) the fossil record
2.) molecular biology describing the fundemental mechanism of evolution
3.) the phylogenetic tree
4.) How the fact that how an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that presists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree.
5.) ERVs
6.) human chromosome fusion
7.) multi drug resistent bacteria
8.) existence of RNAi
9.) Mitochondrial DNA
10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques

[Morrigan]

You guys do know you won't get a reasonable answer, right?

[cyborg]

I'm on ignore! So yes.

[joobz]

You guys do know you won't get a reasonable answer, right?
I'm always willing to give people a chance.

[X]

I only ask because I keep posting my reasons and they are continually ignored. Then I am accused of trying to devastate the evolution theory with the list. So since each is forming his own explanation of what my motive was and rejects my explanation, then any explanation of my motives is as good as the other.

You posted a list for people who think "people who aren't evolutionists as retarded".
I don't know the purpose behind this, and am disinclined to try to find out. It matters very little to me, and I have finals to worry about. Your reasons seem to be a personal dislike of evolution, hence you are grasping at whatever straws you can to hold up your belief in other theories.
It still doesn't explain the purpose of the list, or why we should care.


Source does not affect truth.

I never claimed it did. But perhaps, just possible, it can blind you to truth, no?
Most of the individuals on your list have the Bible as a source. Inherent in the presumption that the Bible is a factual text is belief in a religion.


When one comes across a scientist and his opinions, one has to evaluate his claims objectively.

I believe that's what "peer review" is for.


If the scientist's arguments adhere to the principles of the scientific method, then they can be accepted. If they violate them then they are rejected.

So, by extension, you reject the arguments posed by the scientists on your list, yes?
Or are they not subject to the same requirements as everyone else?


There is no way that you or anyone else can be mislead in the manner you seem to be suggesting.

You do realize that what I was saying is that people can be misled by strict belief in religious doctrines. By claiming this cannot happen, you have automatically labelled every person who ever believed in any religion/faith doctrine as being right. Even the mutually contradictory ones.
Care to re-state what you wrote?


Actually, what you really are saying is that you don't trust a certain group of scientist regardless of what they say because they are religious. That is a subjective evaluation and does not conform to the objectivity required of a person who sincerely seek truth no matter what its source might be.

You slightly misrepresent my opinion here. Possible I was again unclear. Permit me to clarify:
I don't trust a certain group of scientists because they point to their religion as the absolute truth, in spite of overwhelming evidence that points to a contrary system.


Again we come to religion and creationism which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the reason why I don't accept evolutionary claims. This is becoming tiresome.

I apologize for the misunderstanding, then. It's just that, well, most of the (currently living) scientists on your list hold their views, in spite of evidence to the contrary, out of obligation to their religious beliefs.

I know most sciences and scientists try to keep things from getting out of hand. However, evolutionists have gained a reputation for letting things get out of control. But this in itself doesn't provide a reason for rejecting evolution ideas. I never claimed that it did. In fact, I only initially brought up the dishonesty issue in response to a poster who claimed that evolutionists are the epitome of honesty. In response I offered proof to the contrary whereupon it was taken as the reason why I reject evolution and from that point on all my explanations to the contrary have been ignored.


Ah. So then where is the problem? As I stated earlier, thus far the scientific method has been sufficient to uncover these frauds. I see no reason to let the actions of a few individuals taint the whole structure of scientific inquiry.


At any rate, this thread has drifted away from what I thing the OP was meant to follow. I'm not going to contribute to further digression.

Besides, I have an exam in 2 days, and need to learn about 80% of the course material by then. Let that be a lesson to you, boys and girls: Procrastination is bad.

[Radrook]

You ignored my other points, and are confused by the order of events. Creationists hate evolution.

also you said.

You are contradicting yourself. If you have a complaint with evolution, state it. Otherwise, it seems your ONLY complaint is a creationist argument.


So, please answer my original question:

Start with how you discount
1.) the fossil record
2.) molecular biology describing the fundemental mechanism of evolution
3.) the phylogenetic tree
4.) How the fact that how an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that presists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree.
5.) ERVs
6.) human chromosome fusion
7.) multi drug resistent bacteria
8.) existence of RNAi
9.) Mitochondrial DNA
10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques

Well, there are many points to be considered here. Let's take two..

First, you need to start life for it to evolve-right. The way atheistic evolutionists say it started is via abiogenesis.


Second: Isn't it a bit weird to believe that a comparatively simple SETI code indicates organizing intelligence while the infinitely more complex DNA code doesn't?


It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica—an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!

Yet in their actual size—which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick—a teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1996, p. 334).

Refusal to apply the same criteria is called inconsistency of policy and is very unscientific.

"DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised." Bill Gates

[cyborg]

Second: Isn't it a bit weird to believe that a comparatively simple SETI code indicates organizing intelligence while the infinitely more complex DNA code doesn't?

No.

I would explain but I'm on ignore.

I guess the fact that SETI looks for simple rather than complex signals ain't enough of a clue eh? I guess SIMPLE = INTELLIGENT, COMPLEX = INTELLIGENT and... uh, there's no room for anything not intelligent on this scale!

Oh well - GOD did it!

[joobz]

Well, there are many points to be considered here. Let's take one.

Really? But you need to start life for it to evolve-right. ANd the way artheistic evolutionists say it started is via abiogenesis. Not related? Not by a long shot! Also, Isn't it a bit weird to believe that a comparatively simple SETI code indicates organizing intelligence while the infinitely more complex DNA code doesn't?


Refusal to apply the same criteria is called inconsistency of policy and is very unscientific. If you can show a signal that is generated through a mechanism of natural selection and mutation, then you are right. It wouldn't prove the existence of life. However as it stands you are simply comparing apples and oranges.
Besides, why do you keep dwelling on abiogenesis?
I've already addressed this silliness as being unrelated to the question at hand.
Secondly, your claim that abiogenesis is the foundation of evolution, this is untrue. Evolution simlpy discusses the process of speciation and diversification of populations.

Thirdly, your claim that an argument with an "unprovable" premise renders all subsequent arguments moot is patently false.

Thermodynamics is derived off of 4 postulates, which are by definition unprovable. Does this render thermodynamics false?

Gravity describes an observation, but an underlying mechanism remains unproven. Do you doubt the existence of gravity?

The navier-stokes equation, which is the foundation of fluid mechanics and used to design airplanes, cars, piping systems, has still not been proven to be continuous and smooth under all conditions. In other words, we don't know if it is a fully valid description. Does this mean airplanes can't fly?

Newton laws of motion aren't valid in all conditions, does this mean they no longer apply?

I'm asking you very specifically. If evolution doesn't exist, why do all 10 of those points fit the evolutionary model so well?

You are the one claiming you have a non-creationist reason against evolution. I'm giving you a perfect chance to present it.

[Radrook]

You guys do know you won't get a reasonable answer, right?

It just seems that way from your particular viewpoint which is pro-evolution and pro atheist.

[joobz]

No.

I would explain but I'm on ignore.

I guess the fact that SETI looks for simple rather than complex signals ain't enough of a clue eh? I guess SIMPLE = INTELLIGENT, COMPLEX = INTELLIGENT and... uh, there's no room for anything not intelligent on this scale!

Oh well - GOD did it!
and as I mentioned, if we can conceive of a method to generate that signal in a natural selection/mutation type way, it would raise doubts about the proof of life from the signal. However, the signals that are being searched are of a mathematical importance and evolutionary type methods have no need to generate such signals.

[Radrook]

;3246432']You posted a list for people who think "people who aren't evolutionists as retarded".
I don't know the purpose behind this, and am disinclined to try to find out. It matters very little to me, and I have finals to worry about. Your reasons seem to be a personal dislike of evolution, hence you are grasping at whatever straws you can to hold up your belief in other theories.
It still doesn't explain the purpose of the list, or why we should care.

I have never stated that personally dislike is the reason for not accepting evolution. I clearly stated that evolution doesn't offer me the necessary evidence to convince me.

I never claimed it did. But perhaps, just possible, it can blind you to truth, no?
Most of the individuals on your list have the Bible as a source. Inherent in the presumption that the Bible is a factual text is belief in a religion.

Most evolutionists have Darwinian texts in there libraries and other such textbooks they follow religiously. But I don't judge them on that. I focus on their claims and the validity of the evidence they present which I find unconvincing.


I believe that's what "peer review" is for.

Peer review by other evolutionists.
So, by extension, you reject the arguments posed by the scientists on your list, yes?
Or are they not subject to the same requirements as everyone else?

I don't depend on the arguments on any specific scientist list for my conclusions.

You do realize that what I was saying is that people can be misled by strict belief in religious doctrines. By claiming this cannot happen, you have automatically labeled every person who ever believed in any religion/faith doctrine as being right. Even the mutually contradictory ones. Care to restate what you wrote?

This has nothing to do with religious affiliation, beliefs, quackery ad infinitum. It has to do with the quality of evidence, applicability of logic, and the adherence or lack of adherence to the scientific method.

You slightly misrepresent my opinion here. Possible I was again unclear. Permit me to clarify: I don't trust a certain group of scientists because they point to their religion as the absolute truth, in spite of overwhelming evidence that points to a contrary system.

If a scientist points to a religious book then he is speaking religion not science. It is his scientific statements that concern me-not his religious ones.

I apologize for the misunderstanding, then. It's just that, well, most of the (currently living) scientists on your list hold their views, in spite of evidence to the contrary, out of obligation to their religious beliefs.

That is a common assumption. What I have found instead are well thought out scientific arguments and counterarguments by qualified scientists who are speaking science and not religion.

Ah. So then where is the problem? As I stated earlier, thus far the scientific method has been sufficient to uncover these frauds. I see no reason to let the actions of a few individuals taint the whole structure of scientific inquiry.

I am not quite convinced that what evolutionists are practicing is true science. It gives me the impression of being a quasi science based on assumptions leading to unjustified conclusions.


At any rate, this thread has drifted away from what I thing the OP was meant to follow. I'm not going to contribute to further digression.

Besides, I have an exam in 2 days, and need to learn about 80% of the course material by then. Let that be a lesson to you, boys and girls: Procrastination is bad.


Wish you success on your exam. Thanks for the exchange of ideas.

[UnrepentantSinner]

It just seems that way from your particular viewpoint which is pro-evolution and pro atheist.

Evolution, as science, must adhere to strict methodological naturalism in order to be studied. Being pro-science and accepting evolution has nothing to do with atheism. I know loads of theistic evolutionists who are both.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Peer review by other evolutionists.

Who then, other than their peers should review articles? Concert pianists? Romance novelists? Hydrological engineers?

[Cantab]

So if I'm reading this right, the reason the pre-Darwin names are listed with the post-Darwin names is because of an accidental cut-and-paste of 2 lists. Sounds reasonable to me. Can happen to anyone.

However, 2 questions come to mind.

1. How did the pre and post names get jumbled together in a simple cut-and-paste?
2. Why is this list identical (including the 'jumbled' order and description of contribution to science) to one found here:

www (dot) christiananswers (dot) net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

(sorry, I can't post links yet)

I'm no mathematician, so maybe someone can tell me what the odds are of accidentally cutting and pasting 2 separate lists into a jumbled single list that is identical to someone else's list?

[cyborg]

I'm no mathematician, so maybe someone can tell me what the odds are of accidentally cutting and pasting 2 separate lists into a jumbled single list that is identical to someone else's list?

Less than the odds that he's plain out lying and trying to cover his ass by pretending he, "would not be so stupid," by assuming we are.

(You'll note I covered this earlier - it does not ring true at all does it?)

[m_huber]

Most evolutionists have Darwinian texts in there libraries and other such textbooks they follow religiously. But I don't judge them on that. I focus on their claims and the validity of the evidence they present which I find unconvincing.


Interesting. I have quite a number of books behind me in my room, and I read many of them from decades past just to see how ideas have changed over time. Sometimes, I read textbooks and think, "This has been shown to be inaccurate," and sometimes I read an example and think, "This argument is completely unbased."

I can provide examples, if you want, but if not, I'll let it go at the statement.

I would be very interested to know, however, which specific arguments you doubt. Which journals do you read to get your information? What books have you read by currently working scientists that you found issue with, and why?

Please keep in mind that the difference between the origin of life and evolution is analogous to the start of this thread and the way it has evolved. We don't know how life started, and if you want to say that God did it, that's acceptable at this point, and you could find a fair number of scientists who say that God started life. It is not acceptable at this point to state that evolution has not, does not, or cannot happen.

Evolution is what happens after a thing starts. The origin of life is how life started. Different questions.

[Cantab]

Less than the odds that he's plain out lying and trying to cover his ass by pretending he, "would not be so stupid," by assuming we are.

(You'll note I covered this earlier - it does not ring true at all does it?)

Nope, doesn't ring true at all. Especially since the original list can be seen on that christiananswers webpage.

Radrook:
Your premise seems to be that I was ignorant of the possible reaction to such an inclusion? That premise is founded on what? Your low opinion of anyone who isn't an evolutionist?
I didn't say the computer crash literally jumbled the lists. You need to be an imbecile to offer that kind of crap explanation to computer savvy people and expect them to believe it.

I meant, and it should be obvious to those who aren't inclined to jump to conclusions, that the confusion which ensued after the crash was the reason. The two lists were adjacent to each other. I had to reboot. When I rebooted I mistakenly copied and pasted both because I forgot they were meshed together. The second list was copied from the website for future reference and to facilitate faster copy and paste procedure. Now you can take issue with that as well.


You'd also have to be an imbecile to offer the crap explanation that you eventually came up with to computer-savvy people capable of using google.

You're a liar:
www (dot) christiananswers (dot) net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

Lying for Jesus seems to be on the increase.

[joobz]

I clearly stated that evolution doesn't offer me the necessary evidence to convince me.I've given you a chance to prove this statement. I'm still waiting to see why you are doubtful.


But I don't judge them on that. I focus on their claims and the validity of the evidence they present which I find unconvincing.Such as?


I am not quite convinced that what evolutionists are practicing is true science. It gives me the impression of being a quasi science based on assumptions leading to unjustified conclusions.
This is a pure assertion with no proof.

I'm giving you a chance to prove that your argument is more than just incredulity. Provide substance, and people will listen.

To discount evolution, you'll have to come up with alternative, self-consistent, rational explanations for
Start with how you discount
1.) the fossil record
2.) molecular biology describing the fundemental mechanism of evolution
3.) the phylogenetic tree
4.) How the fact that how an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that presists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree.
5.) ERVs
6.) human chromosome fusion
7.) multi drug resistent bacteria
8.) existence of RNAi
9.) Mitochondrial DNA
10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques

This list is far from exaustive. It is purely 10 I came up with in 5 minutes.
give me another two minutes and
11.) vestigal organs
12.) prions
13.) protein multifunctionality
14.) protein polymorphisms
15.) symbiosis
16.) interspecies viable offspring
17.) nylon-eating bacteria
18.) Persistence of Sickle Cell

[UnrepentantSinner]

Radrook has said he's not a Creationist so this is for entertainment purposes only.

{Creationist mode}

Start with how you discount
1.) the fossil record
2.) molecular biology describing the fundemental mechanism of evolution
3.) the phylogenetic tree
4.) How the fact that how an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that presists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree.
5.) ERVs
6.) human chromosome fusion
7.) multi drug resistent bacteria
8.) existence of RNAi
9.) Mitochondrial DNA
10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques

1. What about Piltdown man?/Fossils only prove something alive died.
2. Common design.
3. Fairy tale and wishful thinking.
4. Common design!
5. ERVs in chimps and gorillas that are not in humans.
6. Common design!!!
7. Microevolution.
8. Common Design!!!111!
9. Everything with a mother had MtDNA so what?
10. Fruit flies are still fruit flies!!!


11.) vestigal organs
12.) prions
13.) protein multifunctionality
14.) protein polymorphisms
15.) symbiosis
16.) interspecies viable offspring
17.) nylon-eating bacteria
18.) Persistence of Sickle Cell

11. Still functional, not useless.
12. Common design.
13. Common design!
14. Common design!!!
15. Evolution can't explain sybiotic relationships.
16. Microevolution.
17. Microevolution.
18. The Fall!!111!1!11!!!

{/Creationist mode}

[UnrepentantSinner]

This is a little tangental, but I wanted to post this message I found on another forum on a recent Crevo thread here. Apparently there are religious scholars who are 'evolutionists'.

Shalom,

I don't think any of you here know me ( I don't venture often outside Jewish related threads ) but I had an experince the other day and I wanted to know what the folks here thought of it.

I'm a Librarian by training in addition to holding a degree in Jewish Philosphy. One Library I work at, caters largely to Catholic and Orthodox seminary students, although secular and protestant students often come in, looking for hard to find texts.

Now, this Library has a great deal of literature dealing with the Ancient Near East. My knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and to a lesser extent of Arabic and German, allows me to help just about anyone find the works of an old dead Rabbi, publications from Jerusalem, German higher biblical criticism, etc, etc. I encounter people of all stripes on a daily basis and the ones who I always seem to get into long conversations with, are Protestants. I just encountered for the first time, what I think people would call a Young Earth Creationist.

I live a bit of a blissfully ignorant life. I don't follow controversy, scandals or anything of that nature. In fact, I didn't even know really what creationism was really, until yesterday.

For those of you, who are not familiar with Orthodox Judaism, I'm what many secular people call "Fundamentalist". I'm the guy who wears the fedora, with a black coat and beard who refuses to start a car on shabbat or carry coins in his pocket on shabbat. If anyone could be called a Literalist, it would be me. Most Christians would not hesitate in calling my faith overtly legalistic to a fault.

Yet, I have never encountered Creationism before and now that I have, I must admit, I am stunned. I've never encountered a problem with the Theroy of Evolution. I've sent my children to private Jewish schools and they were taught the Theroy as well. It's never got in the way of my conservative, fundamentalist beliefs at all.

Now the fella I encountered was a bit on the younger side ( No older then 20 ) and the topic came up when he was looking for English versions of Rabbincal commentaries on Genesis. I inquired what his project was so I could better help him. He was looking for Jewish understanding on Genesis Creation, so he could write a paper in support of a literal interpetation of Creation and figured Jewish works might offer a new insight. Needless to say, the only authors who he might find helpful all predate modern science.

Did I encounter a rarity or is this more common place? Is there actually a controversy over Evolution? How many Christians actually read Genesis in that plain and literal of a meaning? What exactly offends their senses, logic and theology?

Many thanks in advance. Shabbat starts tonight at sun down and I'm having my grandchildren over, so I won't be around again till Sunday.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here as to why I presented the list. The purpose of the list is simply to demonstrate that not all scientists subscribe to the Godless evolution theory requiring abiogenesis. Since the pre-Darwinians were believers in Gods, then it follows that they would reject an atheist theory. Nevertheless, their inclusion was accidental.
Sweet Jesus on a pogostick! This is the most tendentious paragraph I've read in some time. Apparently you've never heard of theistic evolution.

~~ Paul

[Michael Redman]

Even more interestingly Linnaeus considered chimpanzees a species of human - Homo troglodytes.

That is interesting.

Since the pre-Darwinians were believers in Gods, then it follows that they would reject an atheist theory.

Well, no, it clearly does not follow that such brilliant men would reject the obvious when presented with overwhelming evidence. However . . .

BTW
The only ones who have made faith relevant to this discussion are the evolutionists themselves by repeatedly bringing in creationism despite my repeated requests that the subject be strictly kept at the logical and scientific level.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You'd also have to be an imbecile to offer the crap explanation that you eventually came up with to computer-savvy people capable of using google.
Now now, Cantab, I think Radrook's explanation is plausible. If his computer crash had merged the two lists in an arbitrary order, that would be one thing, but it is in alphabetical order. That's clearly evidence of one of those mysterious alpha-beta computer crashes we've heard so much about.

And welcome!

~~ Paul

[Acleron]

I have never stated that personally dislike is the reason for not accepting evolution. I clearly stated that evolution doesn't offer me the necessary evidence to convince me.

Most evolutionists have Darwinian texts in there libraries and other such textbooks they follow religiously. But I don't judge them on that. I focus on their claims and the validity of the evidence they present which I find unconvincing.

Peer review by other evolutionists.

I don't depend on the arguments on any specific scientist list for my conclusions.

This has nothing to do with religious affiliation, beliefs, quackery ad infinitum. It has to do with the quality of evidence, applicability of logic, and the adherence or lack of adherence to the scientific method..

Which part of the overwhelming evidence offered by joobz does not convince you?



If a scientist points to a religious book then he is speaking religion not science. It is his scientific statements that concern me-not his religious ones.

That is a common assumption. What I have found instead are well thought out scientific arguments and counterarguments by qualified scientists who are speaking science and not religion.

The vast majority of scientists accept evolution by the known mechanisms as correct and the best way to explain all of the evidence. The only modern scientists who dispute this are the id/creationists who have been discredited by their lack of a viable alternative theory, deliberately ignoring vast swathes of evidence that destroy their arguments and even lying about data when it doesn't suit them. So which scientists have proposed counter theories to evolution?

I am not quite convinced that what evolutionists are practicing is true science. It gives me the impression of being a quasi science based on assumptions leading to unjustified conclusions.

Is it that you do not understand what a theory is in present day science? Good theories are falsifiable and will produce predictions. As Darwin himself pointed out, the description of an irreducibly complex structure would destroy the theory, no such structure has been found that cannot be explained in evolutionary terms. In 1999 Shubin and Daeschler predicted that if the fins of fish evolved into legs it should have taken place in the Devonian period so they concentrated their search on Ellsmere Island which is rich in Devonian rocks. They found Tiktaalik, perfectly fitting their prediction from the theory of evolution.

If you remain unconvinced by this evidence I can only conclude that you have a belief system that makes you uneasy with the evidence. Scientists prefer to go where the data takes them.

[cyborg]

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

"How to argue with an atheist" website + Creation "science" website + zero understanding = Radrook's debate style

Talk about rules of logic - don't follow them
Talk about scientific evidence - don't know what it is
Pretend you came up with this yourself - don't know that we're not morons who haven't seen the same damn thing a million times over

[joobz]

Radrook has said he's not a Creationist so this is for entertainment purposes only.

{Creationist mode}



1. What about Piltdown man?/Fossils only prove something alive died.
2. Common design.
3. Fairy tale and wishful thinking.
4. Common design!
5. ERVs in chimps and gorillas that are not in humans.
6. Common design!!!
7. Microevolution.
8. Common Design!!!111!
9. Everything with a mother had MtDNA so what?
10. Fruit flies are still fruit flies!!!



11. Still functional, not useless.
12. Common design.
13. Common design!
14. Common design!!!
15. Evolution can't explain sybiotic relationships.
16. Microevolution.
17. Microevolution.
18. The Fall!!111!1!11!!!

{/Creationist mode}Ah, yes. The "common design" hand wave used. As soon as someone can come up with a testable hypothesis off of that theory, I'd be willing to consider it.

Oh, yes, they tried with irreducible complexity. That didn't work. Oops.:)


As you say, though, Radrook has said he has scientific reasons to doubt evolution. However, he has still failed to present them.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Explain this, ye Creationists!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/7/7723/67027


~~ Paul

[UnrepentantSinner]

Ah, yes. The "common design" hand wave used. As soon as someone can come up with a testable hypothesis off of that theory, I'd be willing to consider it.

Oh, yes, they tried with irreducible complexity. That didn't work. Oops.:)

I have seen many "Ooooh snap!" moments on the Internet when a C/IDer would suggest homology or whatever was explained by "common design" and the response was 'what about the cephalapod eye/giraffe neck nerves/human lumbar region/human female pelvis' to which the response was either silence or desperate ad hockery.

As you say, though, Radrook has said he has scientific reasons to doubt evolution. However, he has still failed to present them.

I'm holding my breath, but only because I have the hicoughs (sic?) and am trying to get rid of them. :D

[fuelair]

So if I'm reading this right, the reason the pre-Darwin names are listed with the post-Darwin names is because of an accidental cut-and-paste of 2 lists. Sounds reasonable to me. Can happen to anyone.

However, 2 questions come to mind.

1. How did the pre and post names get jumbled together in a simple cut-and-paste?
2. Why is this list identical (including the 'jumbled' order and description of contribution to science) to one found here:

www (dot) christiananswers (dot) net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

(sorry, I can't post links yet)

I'm no mathematician, so maybe someone can tell me what the odds are of accidentally cutting and pasting 2 separate lists into a jumbled single list that is identical to someone else's list?
My suspicion is that they are some similar to the odds of finding a creationist with hard scientific evidence proving each step of his version of the appearance/changes in life on earth (or better).

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Well, if you understood what he meant and feel it deserves repetition in a more direct manner then post it and we can decently discuss it if you wish. Sarcasm, hecklings anf jecklings, snide remarkjs, mockery, veiled insults and the like I consider irrelevant to the subject and a clutter to the thread. So to prevent unnecessary clutter, at least from the vantage point of my computor screen, I weed habitual users of such tactics via my ignore option. This keeps things nicely in what I personally considere a healthful equilibrium.

Funny. Those are the only reason I am reading this thread.

In the meantime I am channeling one of the scientists on your list who died before Darwin published. I won't say which one because he says he doesn't want to be bothered by spirit readers. I have been reading him sections of Origin of Species. He says, "If I had read that whilest I was on your plane, I would be an evilutionist too". :D

[Foster Zygote]

So if I'm reading this right, the reason the pre-Darwin names are listed with the post-Darwin names is because of an accidental cut-and-paste of 2 lists. Sounds reasonable to me. Can happen to anyone.

However, 2 questions come to mind.

1. How did the pre and post names get jumbled together in a simple cut-and-paste?
2. Why is this list identical (including the 'jumbled' order and description of contribution to science) to one found here:

www (dot) christiananswers (dot) net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

(sorry, I can't post links yet)

I'm no mathematician, so maybe someone can tell me what the odds are of accidentally cutting and pasting 2 separate lists into a jumbled single list that is identical to someone else's list?

Nice catch Cantab, and welcome.

So how 'bout it Radrook, why did you lie? You could have easily stated that this list was not compiled by you, but you came up with an elaborate and ridiculously improbable lie rather than admit the simple truth. Instead of admitting the honest mistake of not checking the list, you have now been caught in an outright lie. Why should we not consider your integrity compromised?

[joobz]

Nice catch Cantab, and welcome.

So how 'bout it Radrook, why did you lie? You could have easily stated that this list was not compiled by you, but you came up with an elaborate and ridiculously improbable lie rather than admit the simple truth. Instead of admitting the honest mistake of not checking the list, you have now been caught in an outright lie. Why should we not consider your integrity compromised?
I would be completely happy to forgive such an obvious lie if he 1.) was willing to apologize or 2.) was willing to actually present a viable scientific argument against evolution.


BTW, is that your guitar in your avatar? It looks familiar.

[qayak]

I would be completely happy to forgive such an obvious lie if he 1.) was willing to apologize or 2.) was willing to actually present a viable scientific argument against evolution.

Well, they could always use the scrap yard + hurricane = jumbo jet argument to explain the list problems. Would that be good enough? :eye-poppi

[joobz]

Well, they could always use the scrap yard + hurricane = jumbo jet argument to explain the list problems. Would that be good enough? :eye-poppi
Good enough for a laugh. ;)

The fact is, as I know you are aware, there have been too many subtle facts supporting the current model of evolution that it is highly unlikely that a radically different hypothesis would fit the data equally well.

No scientist would be against such a proposition, and would even welcome the idea. But for it to be even considered, it must perform as well as the current theory. The list of 18 points I gave are simply a small sampling of all the kinds of data that must be accounted for before an alternate theory is taken seriously.

The anti-evolutionist movement is purely anti-science.

[qayak]

Good enough for a laugh. ;)

The fact is, as I know you are aware, there have been too many subtle facts supporting the current model of evolution that it is highly unlikely that a radically different hypothesis would fit the data equally well.

No scientist would be against such a proposition, and would even welcome the idea. But for it to be even considered, it must perform as well as the current theory. The list of 18 points I gave are simply a small sampling of all the kinds of data that must be accounted for before an alternate theory is taken seriously.

The anti-evolutionist movement is purely anti-science.

I agree completely. I think that creationists get their understanding of science from newspapers and have little or no knowledge of the underlying mechanisms or supporting evidence. This is what leads to their wacked out, alternative theories.

[bokonon]

I think Radrook's explanation is plausible. If his computer crash had merged the two lists in an arbitrary order, that would be one thing, but it is in alphabetical order. That's clearly evidence of one of those mysterious alpha-beta computer crashes we've heard so much about.
Is that the crash that's caused by the deus ex machiavelli virus?

[Foster Zygote]

BTW, is that your guitar in your avatar? It looks familiar.

Yup, that's Mikey.

[CapelDodger]

Just taking the biologists or related fields because I don't have the time to waste on all these religious fundamentalists who also went to school...

Duane Gish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish)




John W. Klotz (http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp1no2.htm) The entire page is about this guy's belief the Bible is a literal work. His only reference to genetic science is thin one quoting a 1950s book. Yet he claims to be a geneticist??




I can't read the Russian links but this comment on talk origins addresses the false listing of this name on the Creation Science list. I notice the guy died last year as well. Maybe he can't defend the accusation now. Leonid Korochkin (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/nov05.html)




Lane P. Lester (http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_4a.html), in his own words.


I'm tired of this exercise. This is religious proselytizing, not science.

I still think the list is worth examining and discussing, even though talkorigins seems to have done most of the legwork already.

I don't think it's worth engaging with Radrook here, except regarding specific scientists in the list. It's not actually Radrook's list (cut and pasted, who ever thought otherwise?), and he's all over another thread already.

[Shalamar]

It seems Radrooks real problem seems to be with Abiogenesis, not with actual Evolution, though he thinks that the two are one and the same?

[CapelDodger]

It seems Radrooks real problem seems to be with Abiogenesis, not with actual Evolution, though he thinks that the two are one and the same?

No, that's just ducking and weaving. The real problem with the Radrook approach (and he's far from unique) is that it depends on selected authority - thus the list that a selected authority presents as yet more authorities. There's no independent thought in evidence, but plenty of conviction.

[Acleron]

Helloo Radrook, where are you?

[Radrook]

No, that's just ducking and weaving. The real problem with the Radrook approach (and he's far from unique) is that it depends on selected authority - thus the list that a selected authority presents as yet more authorities. There's no independent thought in evidence, but plenty of conviction.

That's a total misrepresentation of the reasons I gave. If that's all you have, the twisting of a person's ideas, then you have nothing. If you wish to address the issues, then do so. But misrepresentation is really of no value whatsoever. In fact, it only indicates, that you are either going by the statements of other misrepresenters and haven't read my explanations at all or else are making noise for the sake of joining in. Which will eventually lead to my having to avoid the irrelevant clutter via ignoring and focus on responses and posters who are really conversant with the issues involved.

[Radrook]

In the meantime here is more grist for your teeth grinding:



Great post!
The biggest argument against ID is that is isn't necessary! Essentially Occam's Razor. Natural selection all by it very own self can explain everything. So why postulate intelligent design?


Necessity? Wonder what makes evolution as an explanation necessary? Non-evolutionist scientists view it as unnecessary since ID explains everything to their satisfaction. So the knife cuts both ways-I guess.

Can explain?

Maybe this person has a different definition for the word "explanation." Perhaps he means satisfactory explanation. But that doesn't work either since ID is quite satisfactory explanation for non-evolutionist scientists. So what he really means is that the only explanation which satisfies him and should satisfy everyone else is an atheistic one.


I think people who are drawn to ID are people who invoke "the argument from personal incredulity." Essentially they cannot imagine that natural selection could have resulted in the present world, despite hard scientific evidence to the contrary, hence they believe in ID.

Inability to imagine? Hard scientific