Creation vs. Evolution II

[gcthomas]

Semantics? He is complaining about secular, non creationist opposition to the modern TOE. He says perhaps these scientists are just not educated good enough

Phase read. The trickle of objectors is people who object to the neo-darwinian synthesis, but they are not objecting to what you call common ancestry. But you falsely claim they are. (Did I use short enough words this time?)

 

[6days]

*Phase read. The trickle of objectors is people who object to the neo-darwinian synthesis, but they are not objecting to what you call common ancestry. But you falsely claim they are. (Did I use short enough words this time?)

They reject 'Darwinism'. They don't believe in the Creator God of the Bible, but find TOE an inadequate explanation.

There are of course many biologists who do find the Creator God is the most logical, and scientific explanation. *(Try use shorter words next time please)

 

[6days]

*The claim was specifically about "PhD scientists", not just anyone with a PhD in any subject.*

Yes... What I had said is, "Isn't it amazing that in spite of these prominent institutions being solidly against Biblical creation... that there are now thousands of PhD scientists who reject common ancestry beliefs"

*

Most college graduates are not PhD's, nor are they scientists.

True... But I thought it was cool that 20% of college grads understand evidence does not support what they are taught about our origins. It also does give an indication that there would be thousands of PhD scientists who reject common ancestry.*

*

But again, the claim wasn't about "thousands of scientists", it was "thousands of PhD scientists". Not every AAAS member has a PhD (me for example).

This group helps to show my estimate of thousands of scientists rejecting common ancestry was a low ball number. There are easily thousands of PhD scientists who reject common ancestry.*

A number of years ago,*"*Dr. Russell Humphreys, physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, estimates that there are around 10,000 practicing professional scientists in the USA alone who openly believe in a six-day creation."*http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i10f.htm

First, that's merely a speculation from a creationist.

Well... surely that is better than mere speculation from an evolutionist?

So no 6days, you've still not demonstrated that there are "thousands of PhD scientists who reject common ancestry".

So...tens of thousands?

Jose... I realize we are having fun with this but you must realize what I said is truth. USA alone churns out about 40,000 PhD's in the sciences every year. Even if only 2% understand the evidence doesn't support man evolving from 'monkeys'...we would still have a couple thousand brilliant PhD scientists in just 3 years.

 

[everready]

Yes.... but there are millions of Muslims who sincerely seek the true God. Many are very open to hear the Christian message... but we need present Jesus in a loving way. It's interesting that millions of Muslims have come to Christ in recent years from Muslim countries.

Praise God if they have come to Christ but have they come to Christ or have they come to mother church?

everready

 

[6days]

Praise God if they have come to Christ but have they come to Christ or have they come to mother church?

Example of fairly common story...
http://www1.cbn.com/onlinediscipleship/visions-of-jesus-stir-muslim-hearts

 

[gcthomas]

They reject 'Darwinism'. They don't believe in the Creator God of the Bible, but find TOE an inadequate explanation.

There are of course many biologists who do find the Creator God is the most logical, and scientific explanation. *(Try use shorter words next time please)

No. They seem to be rejecting the neo-darwinian synthesis specifically. In trying to claim that they are rejecting Darwinism you are trying to imply that they are rejecting evolution, but that would be inaccurate. Since you know this, you should stop wriggling and just abandon this particular line of argument: first it is irrelevant that some scientists argue against the status so since that is what scientists are supposed to do. Second, you are deliberately misrepresenting what had been said since these scientists handle rejected evolution. This, even of you could find evidence that the neo-darwinian synthesis was incomplete that is a long way from pricing out was false. Fourth, you endlessly misquote almost every piece of science you refer to, either dishonestly or naively. Give it up and engage honestly, 6days.

 

[6days]

Fourth, you endlessly misquote almost every piece of science you refer to, either dishonestly or naively. Give it up and engage honestly, 6days.

So you say...

Let the article speak for itself...

"Virtually all of the non-creationist opposition to the modern theory of evolution, and all of the minimal approbation of Shapiro’s views, come from molecular biologists. I’m not sure whether there’s something about that discipline (the complexity of molecular mechanisms?) that makes people doubt the efficacy of natural selection, or whether it’s simply that many molecular biologists don’t get a good grounding in evolutionary biology.

"And now we learn that another respected philosopher (Jerry Fodor was the first) has come out against neo-Darwinism, too: the distinguished philosopher*Thomas Nagel*is about to issue*Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Concept of Nature is Almost Certainly False.*The Amazon blurb is, well, disturbing:

"The modern materialist approach to life has conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value. This failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind, argues philosopher Thomas Nagel, is a major problem, threatening to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology.

"Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history, either. An adequate conception of nature would have to explain the appearance in the universe of materially irreducible conscious minds, as such.

"Nagel’s skepticism is not based on religious belief or on a belief in any definite alternative. In*Mind and Cosmos, he does suggest that if the materialist account is wrong, then principles of a different kind may also be at work in the history of nature, principles of the growth of order that are in their logical form teleological rather than mechanistic.

"In spite of the great achievements of the physical sciences, reductive materialism is a world view ripe for displacement. Nagel shows that to recognize its limits is the first step in looking for alternatives, or at least in being open to their possibility."

 

[gcthomas]

So you say...

Let the article speak for itself...

"Virtually all of the non-creationist opposition to the modern theory of evolution, and all of the minimal approbation of Shapiro’s views, come from molecular biologists. I’m not sure whether there’s something about that discipline (the complexity of molecular mechanisms?) that makes people doubt the efficacy of natural selection, or whether it’s simply that many molecular biologists don’t get a good grounding in evolutionary biology.

"And now we learn that another respected philosopher (Jerry Fodor was the first) has come out against neo-Darwinism, too: the distinguished philosopher*Thomas Nagel*is about to issue*Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Concept of Nature is Almost Certainly False.*The Amazon blurb is, well, disturbing:

"The modern materialist approach to life has conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value. This failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind, argues philosopher Thomas Nagel, is a major problem, threatening to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology.

"Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history, either. An adequate conception of nature would have to explain the appearance in the universe of materially irreducible conscious minds, as such.

"Nagel’s skepticism is not based on religious belief or on a belief in any definite alternative. In*Mind and Cosmos, he does suggest that if the materialist account is wrong, then principles of a different kind may also be at work in the history of nature, principles of the growth of order that are in their logical form teleological rather than mechanistic.

"In spite of the great achievements of the physical sciences, reductive materialism is a world view ripe for displacement. Nagel shows that to recognize its limits is the first step in looking for alternatives, or at least in being open to their possibility."

Leaving out the philosopher who objects to science, the quote supports my contention, that those scientists who object to the neo-darwinist synthesis do not reject evolution as a fact.

You seem to be reading a different article for your conclusions.

 

[6days]

Leaving out the philosopher who objects to science, the quote supports my contention, that those scientists who object to the neo-darwinist synthesis do not reject evolution as a fact.

You seem to be reading a different article for your conclusions.

Ha... I have quoted almost the entire article, without any comment from me, and you are still arguing. How about we just let it stand as is...no spin?

 

[gcthomas]

Ha... I have quoted almost the entire article, without any comment from me, and you are still arguing. How about we just let it stand as is...no spin?

Only the first paragraph refers to scientists. And you are so keen to see scientists reject evolution you fail to see that specifically only the neo-darwinian synthesis theory of evolution is mentioned. Not the fact of evolution.

 

[Jonahdog]

Ha... I have quoted almost the entire article, without any comment from me, and you are still arguing. How about we just let it stand as is...no spin?

citation please

 

[6days]

citation please

By the power invested in me in the state of Rationality, I hereby issue you this citation for reading over and above the recognized maximum limit of comprehension. You are hereby ordered to re-read the document in question and reappear before me when you have completed this one step program.

 

[gcthomas]

Ha... I have quoted almost the entire article, without any comment from me, and you are still arguing. How about we just let it stand as is...no spin?

Amidst the entire article? Huh.

You missed out the beginning two thirds of the article which sets put the issue that was being addressed.

Go and read it, then get back to me to see of you still wish to defend your claims based on a partial quote.

 

[Jose Fly]

True... But I thought it was cool that 20% of college grads understand evidence does not support what they are taught about our origins. It also does give an indication that there would be thousands of PhD scientists who reject common ancestry.

No it doesn't. The majority of college degrees are not in science.

This group helps to show my estimate of thousands of scientists rejecting common ancestry was a low ball number.

No it doesn't. This is like interacting with Lon, where you seem to think things become so merely because you say so.

Well... surely that is better than mere speculation from an evolutionist?

That's a good joke. :chuckle:

Jose... I realize we are having fun with this but you must realize what I said is truth.

Again you sound just like Lon....."it must be true because I say it is".

USA alone churns out about 40,000 PhD's in the sciences every year.

Let's see your source for that.

Even if only 2% understand the evidence doesn't support man evolving from 'monkeys'...we would still have a couple thousand brilliant PhD scientists in just 3 years.

Pure speculation. Your claim remains unsubstantiated.

 

[Jose Fly]

Amidst the entire article? Huh.

You missed out the beginning two thirds of the article which sets put the issue that was being addressed.

Go and read it, then get back to me to see of you still wish to defend your claims based on a partial quote.

Again 6days deliberately omits key portions of the material he cites....IOW, he's quote mining again.

The question is, will he be let off the hook like he was last time after he quote mined a dictionary?

 

[6days]

While discussing secular biologists who reject typical Darwinian beliefs...here is a molecular virologist,*Dr Yingguang Liu, an atheist from China who made the journey from atheism to now teaching about the Biblical Creator. He says, "As the founding fathers of modern science emphasized, the world can make sense only in the light of benevolent divine design. I cannot comprehend, let alone teach biology, without referring to design and purpose.”

http://creation.mobi/molecular-virologist-Dr-Yingguang-Liu-interview

 

[gcthomas]

While discussing secular biologists who reject typical Darwinian beliefs...here is a molecular virologist,*Dr Yingguang Liu, an atheist from China who made the journey from atheism to now teaching about the Biblical Creator. He says, "As the founding fathers of modern science emphasized, the world can make sense only in the light of benevolent divine design. I cannot comprehend, let alone teach biology, without referring to design and purpose.”

http://creation.mobi/molecular-virologist-Dr-Yingguang-Liu-interview

Care to respond to the fact that you claimed to have reproduced almost the entire article previously, but it turns out you left out the critical first two thirds?

 

[6days]

Care to respond to the fact that you claimed to have reproduced almost the entire article previously, but it turns punt you left out the critical first two thirds?

Sure... go ahead and quote all... or parts you want my opinion on.

 

[gcthomas]

Sure... go ahead and quote all... or parts you want my opinion on.

It was your wrote mining, so of you wanted to use all of it you would have fine, so we can all just assume it damaged your argument. And having read it I can say that it demolishes your dishonest conclusions.

Fell free to refute using the actual article.

 

[6days]

It was your wrote mining, so of you wanted to use all of it you would have fine, so we can all just assume it damaged your argument. And having read it I can say that it demolishes your dishonest conclusions.

I'm quite sure you know your argument is silly. Do you even know what quote mining is?*

You don't need to quote an entire book...an entire article etc. But, if you quote someone, you need to quote them in context. I invited you to quote more of the article..... or even quote from Moran himself if you think it changes anything. He somehow seems to think there must be a 3rd way, as he rejects Darwinism and creationism.*

He understands TOE... but rejects that random mutations and natural selection have creative capabilities demanded by Darwinism.