Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Jose Fly]

“Darwinian theory is the creation myth of our culture. It’s the officially sponsored, government financed creation myth that the public is supposed to believe in, and that creates the evolutionary scientists as the priesthood… So we have the priesthood of naturalism, which has great cultural authority, and of course has to protect its mystery that gives it that authority—that’s why they’re so vicious towards critics.” Phillip Johnson

Um.....ok? Not sure what your point is in quoting a creationist lawyer.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Are you trying to say that in order to be a true scientist you have to first reject God?

So these people were not scientists at all? or if they were, their theories or laws shouldn't be trusted?

Fathers of Science who Believed in the Creator God Philip Paracelsus, died 1541, Chemical Medicine Nicolas Copernicus, 1543, Scientific Revolution Francis Bacon, 1626, Scientific Method Johann Kepler, 1630, Physical Astronomy Galileo Galilei, 1642, Law of falling bodies William Harvey, 1657, Circulatory System Blaise Pascal, 1662, Probability and Calculators Robert Boyle, 1691, Chemistry Christiaan Huygens, 1695, Physical Optics Isaac Newton, 1727, Gravitation Carolus Linnaeus, 1778, Taxonomy, Modern Biology George Cuvier, 1832, Anatomy/Paleontology John Dalton, 1844, Atomic Theory

Or these (all of whom came after Darwin)?

Michael Faraday, died 1867, Electromagnetism Matthew Maury, 1873, Oceanography James Clerk Maxwell, 1879, Electromagnetic Radiation Louis Pasteur, 1885, Microbiology James Joule, 1889, Thermodynamics Lord Kelvin, 1907, Thermodynamics (preferred ID over Darwinism; see below) Joseph Lister, 1912, Modern Surgery G. W. Carver, 1943, Modern Agriculture

No, I didn't say or imply any such thing and I'm bemused as to how you even inferred that.

 

[George Affleck]

It's not a mantra, it's simply the truth, your religious sensibilities notwithstanding. Look RD, science isn't interested in personal beliefs, it is only concerned with evidence. If the evidence didn't support evolution it wouldn't be globally accepted, simple as that.

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasture and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” Dr. George Wall

 

[Jose Fly]

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasture and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” Dr. George Wall

You know, if you're going to dishonestly quote mine a guy, at least get his name right.

 

[Arthur Brain]

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasture and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” Dr. George Wall

Quoting somebody's opinion doesn't really amount to much and has no bearing on the fact that science deals with evidence, not people's personal beliefs. Furthermore, there's no cognitive dissonance with accepting evolution and having theistic belief, as evidenced on here and throughout the world.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You know, if you're going to dishonestly quote mine a guy, at least get his name right.

Along with 'Pasteur'...

:thumb:

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's bizarre. Thunderstorms were probably thought to be magic before mankind gained knowledge of meteorological phenomena.

Funnily enough, there's a very good chance that Luke Howard (the Father of meteorology) believed in God (the Howards were Quakers).

 

[Arthur Brain]

Funnily enough, there's a very good chance that Luke Howard (the Father of meteorology) believed in God (the Howards were Quakers).

Quite possibly, just as plenty who accept an old earth and the theory of evolution do also.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Quite possibly, just as plenty who accept an old earth and the theory of evolution do also.

So if someone doesn't accept the theory of evolution, but wants to be a scientist, what should they do?

 

[Arthur Brain]

So if someone doesn't accept the theory of evolution, but wants to be a scientist, what should they do?

Learn.

 

[George Affleck]

Quoting somebody's opinion doesn't really amount to much and has no bearing on the fact that science deals with evidence, not people's personal beliefs. Furthermore, there's no cognitive dissonance with accepting evolution and having theistic belief, as evidenced on here and throughout the world.

“In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.” H. J. Lipson

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." Arthur Keith

 

[George Affleck]

So if someone doesn't accept the theory of evolution, but wants to be a scientist, what should they do?

They have to lie through their teeth all the way through school and only admit what they really believe after they get their degree.

 

[Arthur Brain]

“In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.” H. J. Lipson

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." Arthur Keith

These quote mines don't aid anything.

 

[Arthur Brain]

So if someone doesn't accept the theory of evolution, but wants to be a scientist, what should they do?

My last was a bit of a flippant answer. There's a lot more to science than merely evolution so if they're skilled in other areas then go for it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Learn.

What if they already have a high level education in the field of their choice, but still reject the theory of evolution?

 

[6days]

Just imagine how difficult it is for a atheist PhD scientist, to come to the realization that everything that been taught about 'evolution'...and everything they believed was not consistent with the evidence... and that the Biblical account was best fit to the evidence.

That would be something! But you act as if they would just need to reject 'evolution' at that point. Rather, they'd have to reject science wholesale.

You must not understand science, since you seem to confuse it with common ancestry beliefs.


One example of atheist scientist turned young earth creationist is geneticist Dr. John Sanford. (about 80 peer reviewed arytcles).

Another example of evolutionist turned young earth creationist is Dr. Gary Parker PhD biologist, paleontologist, cognate geology. At one time he enjoyed mocking Christians to the point of tears. He discussed a gut wrenching slow realization that the evolutionism he loved, was not the best fit for the evidence.

Another thought experiment: Just imagine how difficult it is for a atheist PhD scientist, to come to the realization that everything that been taught about 'evolution'...and everything they believed was not consistent with the evidence... and that the Earth was actually flat!

IF thousands of scientists started started to say the earth was flat, I think I would pay attention to their arguments. However... your analogy is false because there are no PhD scientists claiming the earth is flat. HOWEVER... there are thousands of scientists, worldwide who reject the goo to you belief system

 

[Arthur Brain]

What if they already have a high level education in the field of their choice, but still reject the theory of evolution?

Just answered that. There's nothing preventing someone from pursuing a career in science and also making a difference in many fields regardless of whether they accept evolution or not.

 

[Jose Fly]

One example of atheist scientist turned young earth creationist is geneticist Dr. John Sanford. (about 80 peer reviewed arytcles).

You're still citing that guy? Even after you were made aware of how all 80 of his articles were from when he was an "evolutionist" and he explicitly stated that his conversion was due to religious, rather than scientific, reasons?

You really are a human tape recorder...only capable of repeating the same things over and over and over and over and over....without the slightest concern over the truthfulness of what you're saying.

 

[Ktoyou]

Just answered that. There's nothing preventing someone from pursuing a career in science and also making a difference in many fields regardless of whether they accept evolution or not.

same with astrology?

 

[6days]

The ToE came about because of the evidence that supports it.

Haha..... surely you don't really believe that? If that was true, Toe would have been tossed long ago, since science has proved almost everything false that evolutionists believed at the time of the S opens trial. And going back further, Darwin made many excellent observations but his conclusions were shoddy.


Evolutionists claim "useless" is evidence...They claim Functional is evidence..... they claim both good design and poor design is evidence of their beliefs... it is a non falsifiable belief system