Total Posts:99|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A query to the Creationist/IDer crowd

JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 12:02:48 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
If the Creationists/IDers truly possess the "magic bullet", so to speak, that can shoot down such a major scientific theory in Evolutionary Theory, then we feel obliged to ask you guys why your crowd has not, so to speak, "pulled the trigger", and why they haven't actually got out there and presented this super special evidence that will completely debunk Evolution and UCA while supplanting it with Creationism/ID, which as us evolution advocates have continually pointed out, would mean that anyone successful at such a venture would be gifted with mass amounts of money and awards? Why would you Creationists/IDers be so reluctant to actually go through with this?

Regardless of what you guys feel about the factual validity or not of Evolutionary Theory, you must surely however agree that it is currently considered by the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field to provide the most explanatory power for the evidence within the field of biology, and that it is held in high regard by the vast majority of biologists in the scientific community, so that if a new legit scientific theory came along that could supplant evolutionary theory and provide a far better explanation of the evidence than evolution, then it WOULD be huge news.

So, quite frankly, we find it absolutely baffling that despite the Creationist/IDer crowd's claims of having definitive evidence that can completely overturn Evolutionary Theory, they have not gotten out into the scientific community and actually provided their super special evidence in a credible manner so that they could replace the theory they oppose with the one they support and be showered with riches and historical legend status.

The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from this is that, in reality, the Creationist/IDer crowd, despite its claims, does NOT possess the "Magic Bullet" against Evolutionary Theory, and instead only have very weak objections which have been completely annihilated by cross examination. We can also cite the precedent of these other scientists: http://www.expelledexposed.com... that, contrary to the Creationist/IDer crowd's claims, it's completely possible to challenge the consensus view of the time within science and get it overturned, which is a far cry from what the Creationist/ID crowd ever attempts to truly do. Instead, rather than "putting in the hours" and actually doing the work to actually demonstrate their claims, all I've ever seen the Creationist/IDer crowd do is whine and scream about persecution and allege conspiracy theories against them, while continually being caught out about their own shady tactics and dishonest means of attempting to promote their own beliefs.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 1:12:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
1: Evolution is the only naturalistic theory which could possibily explain life
2: Science is the study of nature
3: Scientists are thereby deemed unprofessional to postulate anything outside of their remit
4: Evolution must be true

This, by and large, answers your question.

But plenty of IDers have put in the time. Stephen Meyer, for example
https://www.youtube.com...

A paper published in the peer reviewed journal; Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington DC, in 2004 concluded that intelligent design was the "best explanation", for the Cambrian explosion.

But the editor of the journal was forced to resign due to an outspoken lobbying movement.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 1:16:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
And i will add, evolutionists are told not to debate creationists, when they do, they tend to lose. This is why, other than the hovind debates (which he wins almost every one), the only other c v e debate on youtube is
https://www.youtube.com...
university debate

the creationists win.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 1:37:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 3/21/2014 1:12:37 PM, andymcstab wrote:
1: Evolution is the only naturalistic theory which could possibily explain life
2: Science is the study of nature
3: Scientists are thereby deemed unprofessional to postulate anything outside of their remit
4: Evolution must be true

This, by and large, answers your question.

Not really. Would you like to explain how any of this relates to any magic bullet that would take evolutionary theory down? Also, if you're alleging that the supernatural exists, as implied by your tone about "nature", then it's your BOP to demonstrate the supernatural exists. And evolution is true because we have mass amounts of evidence supporting it. If you want to claim otherwise, produce the magic bullet.

But plenty of IDers have put in the time. Stephen Meyer, for example
https://www.youtube.com...

A paper published in the peer reviewed journal; Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington DC, in 2004 concluded that intelligent design was the "best explanation", for the Cambrian explosion.

But the editor of the journal was forced to resign due to an outspoken lobbying movement.

You're talking about Richard Sternberg. There was an understandable outcry from members of the Biological Society of Washington over the embarrassing publication of what they recognized as poorly-written, inaccurate science in their journal. The argument presented in the Meyer paper had previously been reviewed and rejected by scientists. So yes, there was a quite understandable and rational lobbying movement. In a press release, the Council of the BSoW said:

"Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history."


So basically, the paper was substandard science, and Sternberg circumvented standard procedures in order to get it published.

Also, Sternberg wasn't the best qualified to review the paper, contrary to his claims. As Ed Brayton points out:

"Systematics (the study of taxonomy) is the subject of the PBSW and it is the subject of Sternberg"s expertise, but it is not the subject of Meyer"s paper. The primary subject of the paper is the Cambrian explosion and, ostensibly, bioinformatics as it pertains to the origin of the higher phyla. This is not the focus of Sternberg"s research, nor does it have much of anything to do with systematics other than an obligatory discussion of how many phyla and sub-phyla originated during the Cambrian. The most appropriate reviewers, then, would be paleontologists. Among the associate editors at the time (and still today) was Gale Bishop, an expert in invertebrate paleontology. There were three other specialists on invertebrates among the associate editors as well, including current PBSW editor Stephen Gardiner, Christopher Boyko and Janet Reid, all specialists in invertebrate zoology (the Cambrian fauna was almost entirely made up of invertebrates). Yet Sternberg felt no need to let any of those people, all more qualified than him on the subject, even look at the paper, or even make them aware of its existence. He may not have been under any formal obligation to send the article to someone with a specialty in Cambrian paleontology, but that is both the professional and the ethical thing to do."

The fact that Sternberg published the Meyer paper in his second-to-last scheduled issue as editor, and that he didn"t follow normal procedure, suggests that he knew that his actions and the paper would be seen as objectionable by his fellow scientists. So you've provided a highly misleading version of the events here.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 1:54:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 3/21/2014 1:37:02 PM, JonMilne wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:12:37 PM, andymcstab wrote:
1: Evolution is the only naturalistic theory which could possibily explain life
2: Science is the study of nature
3: Scientists are thereby deemed unprofessional to postulate anything outside of their remit
4: Evolution must be true

This, by and large, answers your question.

Not really. Would you like to explain how any of this relates to any magic bullet that would take evolutionary theory down? Also, if you're alleging that the supernatural exists, as implied by your tone about "nature", then it's your BOP to demonstrate the supernatural exists. And evolution is true because we have mass amounts of evidence supporting it. If you want to claim otherwise, produce the magic bullet.

But plenty of IDers have put in the time. Stephen Meyer, for example
https://www.youtube.com...

A paper published in the peer reviewed journal; Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington DC, in 2004 concluded that intelligent design was the "best explanation", for the Cambrian explosion.

But the editor of the journal was forced to resign due to an outspoken lobbying movement.

You're talking about Richard Sternberg. There was an understandable outcry from members of the Biological Society of Washington over the embarrassing publication of what they recognized as poorly-written, inaccurate science in their journal. The argument presented in the Meyer paper had previously been reviewed and rejected by scientists. So yes, there was a quite understandable and rational lobbying movement. In a press release, the Council of the BSoW said:

"Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history."


So basically, the paper was substandard science, and Sternberg circumvented standard procedures in order to get it published.

Also, Sternberg wasn't the best qualified to review the paper, contrary to his claims. As Ed Brayton points out:

"Systematics (the study of taxonomy) is the subject of the PBSW and it is the subject of Sternberg"s expertise, but it is not the subject of Meyer"s paper. The primary subject of the paper is the Cambrian explosion and, ostensibly, bioinformatics as it pertains to the origin of the higher phyla. This is not the focus of Sternberg"s research, nor does it have much of anything to do with systematics other than an obligatory discussion of how many phyla and sub-phyla originated during the Cambrian. The most appropriate reviewers, then, would be paleontologists. Among the associate editors at the time (and still today) was Gale Bishop, an expert in invertebrate paleontology. There were three other specialists on invertebrates among the associate editors as well, including current PBSW editor Stephen Gardiner, Christopher Boyko and Janet Reid, all specialists in invertebrate zoology (the Cambrian fauna was almost entirely made up of invertebrates). Yet Sternberg felt no need to let any of those people, all more qualified than him on the subject, even look at the paper, or even make them aware of its existence. He may not have been under any formal obligation to send the article to someone with a specialty in Cambrian paleontology, but that is both the professional and the ethical thing to do."

The fact that Sternberg published the Meyer paper in his second-to-last scheduled issue as editor, and that he didn"t follow normal procedure, suggests that he knew that his actions and the paper would be seen as objectionable by his fellow scientists. So you've provided a highly misleading version of the events here.

"Not really. Would you like to explain how any of this relates to any magic bullet that would take evolutionary theory down? "

Well, the point is, no magic bullet is needed to destroy a theory which there is no evidence for but is only assumed necessarily true through an a priori commitment to naturalism.

There is no good evidence for evolution, none at all. But it is the only naturalistic theory which can possibly be made. So from within those confines it must be true. But those confines are completely synthetic.

RE sternberg

" the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history."

I don't doubt there was an uproar, ofcourse there was. Science has become Scientism. Sternberg offended the congregation. But the only reason for disallowing it, was because it postulated a creator, which isn't seen as naturalistic.

"The fact that Sternberg published the Meyer paper in his second-to-last scheduled issue as editor, and that he didn"t follow normal procedure, suggests that he knew that his actions and the paper would be seen as objectionable by his fellow scientists. "

OR, Sternberg grasped his opportunity to try and get the truth out, knowing that he surely would be reprimanded for his heresy, he had decided to leave before publishing the paper.
Whether he is hero or villain depends only on our narration of the story.

Ed Brayton is just an atheist commentator. Ofcourse he puts his spin on it. For the atheist evolution simply must be true.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 1:57:40 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 3/21/2014 1:16:14 PM, andymcstab wrote:
And i will add, evolutionists are told not to debate creationists, when they do, they tend to lose. This is why, other than the hovind debates (which he wins almost every one), the only other c v e debate on youtube is
https://www.youtube.com...
university debate

the creationists win.

The whole question of whether or not to debate creationists always reminds me of a story I once heard by a 30-ish years old philosophy professor. He was a ju-jitsu enthusiast, and trained at one point with a very noted expert in Hawaii. One day, their class was interrupted by a blowhard from Alabama, who travelled to Hawaii specifically to challenge the instructor. The instructor did not want to waste his time with the man, so he informed him that he would only spar with him if he could first defeat the most junior student there. The Alabaman got his arse handed to him by the student in a matter of minutes, so the instructor dismissed the challenger, and they got on with their day.

I don"t think that is makes a lot of sense for Dawkins, or anyone with a PhD, really, to have to debate someone who denies the basis of their field of expertise. That"s relatively uncontroversial here, I think.

I also think anytime there"s a debate where one person is trying to give a reasoned, truthful answer and the other is flat-out lying through his teeth with sound-bites and pithy little slogans (like "where are the crocoducks?") that debate is pointless.

Also, one has to actually deal with the evidence with at least some semblance of intellectual honesty, and not with some yammering anti-science propagandist throwing specious objections every two words or so. That"s why creationists like oral debates, and have concerns on the web: because on the web they can"t prevent the evidence from being presented.

Why do creationists absolutely loathe Talk Origins, and love oral debates? It"s obvious, at Talk Origins the hated evidence is presented persuasively (it varies, yes, some pieces are more mind-numbing than enlightening, but others are quite good), while denials and BS often dominate oral debates.

Debating the evidence is good in the right forum. And that forum is mostly the internet, not oral debates where propagandists rely on sound-bites and rhetoric in order to avoid the weight of the evidence.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 2:10:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 3/21/2014 1:57:40 PM, JonMilne wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:16:14 PM, andymcstab wrote:
And i will add, evolutionists are told not to debate creationists, when they do, they tend to lose. This is why, other than the hovind debates (which he wins almost every one), the only other c v e debate on youtube is
https://www.youtube.com...
university debate

the creationists win.

The whole question of whether or not to debate creationists always reminds me of a story I once heard by a 30-ish years old philosophy professor. He was a ju-jitsu enthusiast, and trained at one point with a very noted expert in Hawaii. One day, their class was interrupted by a blowhard from Alabama, who travelled to Hawaii specifically to challenge the instructor. The instructor did not want to waste his time with the man, so he informed him that he would only spar with him if he could first defeat the most junior student there. The Alabaman got his arse handed to him by the student in a matter of minutes, so the instructor dismissed the challenger, and they got on with their day.

I don"t think that is makes a lot of sense for Dawkins, or anyone with a PhD, really, to have to debate someone who denies the basis of their field of expertise. That"s relatively uncontroversial here, I think.

I also think anytime there"s a debate where one person is trying to give a reasoned, truthful answer and the other is flat-out lying through his teeth with sound-bites and pithy little slogans (like "where are the crocoducks?") that debate is pointless.

Also, one has to actually deal with the evidence with at least some semblance of intellectual honesty, and not with some yammering anti-science propagandist throwing specious objections every two words or so. That"s why creationists like oral debates, and have concerns on the web: because on the web they can"t prevent the evidence from being presented.

Why do creationists absolutely loathe Talk Origins, and love oral debates? It"s obvious, at Talk Origins the hated evidence is presented persuasively (it varies, yes, some pieces are more mind-numbing than enlightening, but others are quite good), while denials and BS often dominate oral debates.

Debating the evidence is good in the right forum. And that forum is mostly the internet, not oral debates where propagandists rely on sound-bites and rhetoric in order to avoid the weight of the evidence.

"I don"t think that is makes a lot of sense for Dawkins, or anyone with a PhD, really, to have to debate someone who denies the basis of their field of expertise. That"s relatively uncontroversial here, I think" This is just slander. Are you saying there are no ID advocates who aren't equipped with a PHD?

"reasoned, truthful answer"
What is your reasoned, truthful answer?
Tell me another theory for the development of complex life, within naturalistic means.
.. There is only evolution, right?
Tell me why it is necessary to confine the question to the realms of naturalism?

You ask a certain question to get a certain answer. This isn't honest or reasoned.

"some yammering anti-science propagandist "
Slander

Whats your evidence for evolution?
can any creatures grow new genes? nope
can live arise from non life? nope
can the mechanisms by which new information can be added to the genome explain vertical evolution? nope
how is dna made? nope
how do the consituent parts of dna know what theyre doing, without any dna formed to guide them? nope.
does the fossil record support your claims? nope
does genetic similarity support your claims? nope
has there ever been any exception to the SLOTD? nope

But all of this is irrelevant. Evolution must be real because there is no God.

If you dont agree, prepare for slander.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 2:22:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 3/21/2014 1:54:51 PM, andymcstab wrote:
"Not really. Would you like to explain how any of this relates to any magic bullet that would take evolutionary theory down? "

Well, the point is, no magic bullet is needed to destroy a theory which there is no evidence for but is only assumed necessarily true through an a priori commitment to naturalism.

The naturalism that science adopts is methodological naturalism. It does not assume that nature is all there is; it merely notes that nature is the only objective standard we have. The supernatural is not ruled out a priori; when it claims observable results that can be studied scientifically, the supernatural is studied scientifically (e.g., Astin et al. 2000; Enright 1999). It gets little attention because it has never been reliably observed. Still, there are many scientists who use naturalism but who believe in more than nature.

The very same form of naturalism is used by everyone, including creationists, in their day-to-day lives. People literally could not survive without making naturalistic assumptions. Creationism itself is based on the naturalistic assumption that the Bible has not changed since the last time it was read.

Naturalism works. By assuming methodological naturalism, we have made tremendous advances in industry, medicine, agriculture, and many other fields. Supernaturalism has never led anywhere. Newton, for example, wrote far more on theology than he did on physics, but his theological work is largely forgotten because there has been no reason to remember it other than for historical curiosity.

Supernaturalism is contentious. Scientific findings are based on hard evidence, and scientists can point at the evidence to resolve disputes. People tend to have different and incompatible ideas of what form supernatural influences take, and all too often the only effective way they have found for reaching a consensus is by killing each other.

There is no good evidence for evolution, none at all. But it is the only naturalistic theory which can possibly be made. So from within those confines it must be true. But those confines are completely synthetic.

That is a lie: http://www.talkorigins.org... , http://evolution.berkeley.edu... . And furthermore, we take the evidence we get from evolutionary theory and use it for practical measures that actually work: http://www.talkorigins.org... . Among other things, bioinformatics, and measures that help in creating medicines against evolving diseases and pesticides.

RE sternberg

" the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history."

I don't doubt there was an uproar, ofcourse there was. Science has become Scientism. Sternberg offended the congregation. But the only reason for disallowing it, was because it postulated a creator, which isn't seen as naturalistic.

On the contrary, as I pointed out above, if solid definitive evidence was provided for a creator, it would be seen as a good thing because scientists get rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution and showed a creator/designer doing creation/design, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.

The above quote is also pure projection. Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it. Many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma (eg: Answers in Genesis). At least one admits that he became a scientist not to find the truth, but to destroy Darwinism (Jonathan Wells). The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists.

"The fact that Sternberg published the Meyer paper in his second-to-last scheduled issue as editor, and that he didn"t follow normal procedure, suggests that he knew that his actions and the paper would be seen as objectionable by his fellow scientists. "

OR, Sternberg grasped his opportunity to try and get the truth out, knowing that he surely would be reprimanded for his heresy, he had decided to leave before publishing the paper.

So you see nothing wrong with violating the standard procedures that form a core basis of why the scientific method actually works? And you wonder why we consider the Creationist/ID position laughable when they can't even attempt to demonstrate their position without using highly dishonest tactics? And I like how you didn't address the other stuff BTW. Creationist quote-mining to a tee.

Whether he is hero or villain depends only on our narration of the story.

Ed Brayton is just an atheist commentator. Ofcourse he puts his spin on it. For the atheist evolution simply must be true.

Evolution does not require a God, but it does not rule one out either. In that respect, it is no different from almost all other fields of interest. Evolution is no more atheistic than biochemistry, farming, engineering, plumbing, art, law, and so forth. Not to mention, there's many religious scientists who endorse evolution as well. Making your "evolution = atheistic" logic utter BS.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 3:00:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
1:
"The naturalism that science adopts is methodological naturalism. It does not assume that nature is all there is........"

Scientists are paid to work within the naturalistic framework, and to posit a supernatural cause would be an admittance of professional failure.

2:
"That is a lie: http://www.talkorigins.org...... , http://evolution.berkeley.edu...... . And furthermore, we take the evidence we get from evolutionary theory and use it for practical measures that actually work: http://www.talkorigins.org...... . Among other things, bioinformatics, and measures that help in creating medicines against evolving diseases and pesticides."

Its not a lie. All your links are based on the assumption that life *must* be explained naturalistically. For instance, you arrange different sized skulls in order to create the idea that the smaller one gradually got larger. Its not evidence, its dogma. Evolution theory isn't used in anything helpful, because we have no theory of evolution. We cannot make models, we cannot make predictions, we cannot even describe how genomes reliably acquire new information. These medicines and things are based on the theory of natural selection and natural variation, not evolution.

We cannot make a single workable model of evolution. We can make models of any theory proven to be true, but no one has ever found a working model for evolution. You should be able to type the laws into a computer, and watch the computer develop intelligent life. It just doesnt happen. Infact it only happens when you remove evolution from the equation.

3;"On the contrary, as I pointed out above, if solid definitive evidence was provided for a creator, it would be seen as a good thing because scientists get rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles."

No, it would be heresy and admittance of professional failure. The taboo around questioning evolution in science circles is profound, i can supply a wealth of information supporting this. Dawkins for instance asserts that non-acceptence of evolution means lack of intelligence or lack of education. Do you really think its a good career move to commit this heresy? It isn't, as has been proven time and again. Not least in the example i already gave RE cambrian explosion.

4
"So you see nothing wrong with violating the standard procedures that form a core basis of why the scientific method actually works? "

Well, i don't trust their account of events, because we already know they are biased.

5:"Evolution does not require a God, but it does not rule one out either. In that respect, it is no different from almost all other fields of interest. "

You are trying to miss the point. Evolution MUST be true for the atheist. This leads to atheists moving into science to prove evolution, they can then claim consensus in scientific opinion, they try and get a stranglehold as gatekeepers of science. they impliment taboos against questioning evolution. There is a whole lot of manipulation going on because evolution is the basis of their religion.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 3:24:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 3/21/2014 2:10:52 PM, andymcstab wrote:
This is just slander. Are you saying there are no ID advocates who aren't equipped with a PHD?

Would you like to provide evidence of ID advocates with PhDs in relevant areas of science to evolutionary theory that don't come from crank universities?

What is your reasoned, truthful answer?

That evolutionary theory, beyond reasonable doubt, provides the best explanation for the evidence we have in multiple fields of science, and should be considered a valid factual scientific theory until solid definitive evidence comes along to disprove it.

Tell me another theory for the development of complex life, within naturalistic means.

That's your BOP, not mine.

.. There is only evolution, right?

On the contrary: http://www.talkorigins.org...

Tell me why it is necessary to confine the question to the realms of naturalism?

See my earlier response about why naturalism works.

You ask a certain question to get a certain answer. This isn't honest or reasoned.

"some yammering anti-science propagandist "
Slander

Whats your evidence for evolution?
can any creatures grow new genes? nope

By procreating with others in the same species you have new genetic codes which is why we all look different even from our parents. Also there are mutations that create whole new species within a few generations. Also, Lenski's e.Coli experiments: http://www.pnas.org...

can live arise from non life? nope

Amino acids. Checkmate.

can the mechanisms by which new information can be added to the genome explain vertical evolution? nope

Wrong again: http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

how is dna made? nope

We're still working on understanding DNA, but what you don't realise is that evolutionary theory was formulated LONG before the discovery of DNA, and it PREDICTED that we would find some mechanism whereby parent organisms could pass on traits to their offspring, whereby traits from both parents of a sexual organism could be mixed in the offspring, and whereby random mutations could be introduced. The discovery of DNA was a big step forward in validating the theory because it exactly fills all of those roles.

The theory of evolution does not explain that first spark of life. Darwin's famous book was called "The Origin of Species," not "The Origin of Life." The study of how the first living thing might have appeared is called "abiogenesis." There is no dominant theory of abiogenesis, and probably never will be; A microscopic event that may have happened in only one place, one time, billions of years ago, is not much of a subject for scientific inquiry, although the Miller-Urey experiments did far more to validate abiogenesis above any other origin hypothesis.

That original spark MIGHT have been nothing more than a single molecule, created by whatever random process, that had the DNA-like ability to act as a template upon which more molecules like itself could form. Pretty soon those molecules would be "competing" for the resources in whatever pool where they formed, and viola! Evolution takes over from there.

how do the consituent parts of dna know what theyre doing, without any dna formed to guide them? nope.

Sigh: http://science.howstuffworks.com... , http://eveloce.scienceblog.com...

does the fossil record support your claims? nope

Now you're just making yourself appear silly: http://www.agiweb.org... , http://www.agiweb.org...

does genetic similarity support your claims? nope

Yawn: http://humanorigins.si.edu... , http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

has there ever been any exception to the SLOTD? nope

What is the fvck is the "SLOTD" supposed to be? In any case, considering your above batting rate as a result of me rebutting your above claims, I'll tentatively claim victory in this one too. In the meantime, present your evidence.

But all of this is irrelevant. Evolution must be real because there is no God.

If you dont agree, prepare for slander.

Like I say, there's nothing ruling God out of evolutionary theory. There's just no need to include a God.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 3:53:18 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 3/21/2014 3:00:44 PM, andymcstab wrote:
Scientists are paid to work within the naturalistic framework, and to posit a supernatural cause would be an admittance of professional failure.

No, when scientists discover new things, it causes excitement and career progression. See the discovery of DNA, and quantum mechanics. I have precedent on my side here.

Its not a lie. All your links are based on the assumption that life *must* be explained naturalistically. For instance, you arrange different sized skulls in order to create the idea that the smaller one gradually got larger. Its not evidence, its dogma. Evolution theory isn't used in anything helpful, because we have no theory of evolution. We cannot make models, we cannot make predictions, we cannot even describe how genomes reliably acquire new information. These medicines and things are based on the theory of natural selection and natural variation, not evolution.

No evidence has been provided as a counter to my evidence. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That said, on the predictions point, this is easily rebutted:

- Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
- Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
- Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
- Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
- Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
- Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
- Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

Also, on genomes adding information: http://www.talkorigins.org...

We cannot make a single workable model of evolution. We can make models of any theory proven to be true, but no one has ever found a working model for evolution. You should be able to type the laws into a computer, and watch the computer develop intelligent life. It just doesnt happen. Infact it only happens when you remove evolution from the equation.

All of this is unevidenced opinion. If you have the definitive evidence, get into the scientific field, do the work, pony up your evidence, and then become a millionaire and win the Nobel Prize. Until then, your position is laughable.

No, it would be heresy and admittance of professional failure. The taboo around questioning evolution in science circles is profound, i can supply a wealth of information supporting this. Dawkins for instance asserts that non-acceptence of evolution means lack of intelligence or lack of education. Do you really think its a good career move to commit this heresy? It isn't, as has been proven time and again. Not least in the example i already gave RE cambrian explosion.

Conspiracy theories, nice. The above quote is written like somebody who hasn't read more than two scientific papers in his whole life. Rejecting "the truth" without evidence would look (and be) foolish, but disproving the truth would result in all the career advancements and Nobel-and-similar prizes I mentioned!

Every scientific paper proves that someone, somewhere, at some point, was wrong. Every single one. The more surprising the disproof, the more prestigious the journal that will accept to publish it; the more prestigious the journals you've published in, the better for your career, your chances at getting grants, and so on. (How extreme this is varies between countries, but it's pretty bad in most.)

Few scientists indeed would trade a publication in Nature for Confucian allegiance to their former thesis supervisors.

There are a million or so scientific papers that back the Theory of Evolution, both directly and indirectly. If the ToE was falsified, there would be a Nobel prize, accolades, etc, waiting for the scientist showing that conclusive evidence. Actually, the odds of that happening are far less than the godbots showing the equivalent of an eternally burning bush for their imaginary deity. If it isn"t there, why are they covering it up?

Well, i don't trust their account of events, because we already know they are biased.

No, "we" don't. That's just your unevidenced opinion. I can show far more examples, and I will later on, of evolutionary scientists who were persecuted for vouching for evolution.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 3:59:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
You are trying to miss the point. Evolution MUST be true for the atheist. This leads to atheists moving into science to prove evolution, they can then claim consensus in scientific opinion, they try and get a stranglehold as gatekeepers of science. they impliment taboos against questioning evolution. There is a whole lot of manipulation going on because evolution is the basis of their religion.

I, and many other atheists, have no emotional attachment to evolution. Whether evolution is true or not makes no bearing on our lack of a God belief unless the theory that replaces it is something that demonstrably demonstrates a God. But creation and evolution aren't the only two possibilities. There are others we may not know of that could end up explaining the evidence better and which still wouldn't invoke a God. Evolution being false doesn't automatically make any God claims true

Beyond that, this just amounts to more conspiracy theories on your part. I can easily rebut this by pointing out that especially since considering the nature of other people and organisations in major news stories and what has happened to them when they've been caught being criminally deceptive, one would expect that if the scientists truly are lying and preventing without evidence any religious scientists from providing counters to secular scientific ideas, then it's a massive scandal absolutely worth pursuing to the fullest extent so as to expose it, and yet the fact I have never seen a single creationist/ID individual or organisation go to such efforts to reveal evolutionary theory as "fraudulent" is extremely revealing about how weak their case is.

Consider just how big such a scam/coverup by atheist scientists would have to be. Take it seriously and see where it takes you. E.g. it can't simply be a matter of hiding some evidence. The evidence we have is sufficient to make it all but certain that some kind of evolution must be occurring. If some evidence had been suppressed, at most it could result in a revision of evolutionary theory.

So, we would have to assume that false evidence had been disseminated. This is no small undertaking, though, since research is so spread out and easily verifiable by labs in various countries. E.g. simple phylogenetic analyses alone provide strong support for common ancestry, so the conspiracy would have to control which sequences were available in databanks and prevent people from doing independent sequencing. This itself is problematic because a single individual who could be bothered to save up for it could buy the necessary machinery, gather the samples and sequence the genes, to verify the facts.

So, in order for evolution to be faked, we'd have to postulate a world-wide conspiracy, controlling universities, publications, facilities and even private access to machinery. It would have to be truly staggering in size, having operatives in every country and every institution. After all, it would only take one unsupervised undergrad to sabotage the entire project.

It's simply out of the question that something of this size could be kept secret. In the real world, the secrecy of a conspiracy is inversely proportional to its size. As the saying goes: "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 4:15:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 3/21/2014 3:53:18 PM, JonMilne wrote:
No, "we" don't. That's just your unevidenced opinion. I can show far more examples, and I will later on, of evolutionary scientists who were persecuted for vouching for evolution.

And now, as promised, here is that list of evolutionary biologist scientists and their supporters who have been fired, harassed, beaten up, and even killed by Fundie Christian Creationist Supporting Extremists whenever they've had the opportunity to do so. This link contains a documentation of the below cases for further clarity: http://www.sunclipse.org...

And now, on with the list of those who have suffered for teaching or accepting evolution:

2 professors fired, Bitterman (SW CC Iowa) and Bolyanatz (Wheaton)

1 persecuted unmercifully Richard Colling (Olivet) Now resigned under pressure.

1 persecuted unmercifully for 4 years Van Till (Calvin)

1 attempted firing Murphy (Fuller Theological by Phillip Johnson IDist)

1 successful death threats, assaults harrasment Gwen Pearson (UT Permian)

1 state official fired Chris Comer (Texas)

1 assault, fired from dept. Chair Paul Mirecki (U. of Kansas)

1 killed, Rudi Boa, Biomedical Student (Scotland)

1 fired Brucke Waltke noted biblical scholar

Biology Department fired, La Sierra SDA University

1 attempted persecution Richard Dawkins by the Oklahoma state legislature

Vandalism Florida Museum of Natural History

Death Threats Eric Pianka UT Austin and the Texas
Academy of Science engineered by a hostile, bizarre IDist named Bill Dembski

Death Threats Michael Korn, fugitive from justice, towards the UC Boulder biology department and miscellaneous evolutionary biologists.

Death Threats Judge Jones Dover trial. He was under federal marshall protection for a while

Up to 16 with little effort. Probably there are more. I turned up a new one with a simple internet search. Haven"t even gotten to the secondary science school teachers.

And the liars of Expelled, The Movie have the nerve to scream persecution. On body counts the creationists are way ahead.

These days, "Fundie Christian" is synonymous with "liar", "ignorant", "stupid", and sometimes "killer".
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 4:35:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Is this a discussion or a spamfest?

You don't win a debate just by spamming too much bull to reply to, yknow.
But i won't devote so much time outside of a formal debate. I am already in the middle of a debate on evolution so if you want a debate, i am very happy to, when this one is finished.

I will take on your first comments just to show how low your standard of objection is.

"Would you like to provide evidence of ID advocates with PhDs in relevant areas of science to evolutionary theory that don't come from crank universities?"

. Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" (1996).

2. Robert W. Faid, American Nuclear Society, Nuclear Scientist, author of A Scientific Approach to Christianity.

3. Michael Denton, medical doctor and molecular biologist, , "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" (1985).

4. Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong" (1982).

5. Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders, "Beyond Neo-Darwinism" (1984).

6. Soren Lovtrup, "Darwinism: Refutation of a Myth" (1987).

7. Milton R., "The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism", Fourth Estate, London, 1992.

8. Rodney Stark, Professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University, see Fact, Fable, and Darwin.

9. Gordon Rattray Taylor, "The Great Evolution Mystery" (1983).

The following scientists (#'s 10-47) stated that "a critical re-evaluation of Darwinism is both necessary and possible" as found at "http://www.apologetics.org...;:

10. ANDREW BOCARSLY, Ph.D. Chemistry, Princeton University

11. HENRY F. SCHAEFER III, Ph. D. Quantum Computational Chemistry, University of Georgia

12. ROBERT TINNIN, Ph.D Biology, Portland State University

13. Benjamin R. Vowels, Ph.D., Microbiology, UC Davis; formerly employed as Assistant Professor, Department of Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania

14. STEPHEN MEYER (Ph.D. in History & Philosophy of Science University of Cambridge), currently professor of philosophy at Whitworth College.

15. DAVID IVES, Ph.D, Biochemistry, Ohio State University

16. WILLIAM DEMBSKI, Ph.D. Philosophy (University of Illinois at Chicago), Ph.D. Mathematics (University of Chicago)

17. ROBERT KAITA, Ph.D. Plasma Physics, Princeton University

18. FRED SIGWORTH, Ph.D. Physiology, Yale Medical School

19. LEO ZACHARSKI, M.D. Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School

20. DAVID VAN DYKE, Ph. D. Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania

21. ROBERT JENKINS, Ph.D. Biology, Ithaca College

22. ROBERT C. KOONS, Ph.D. Philosophy, UT, Austin

23. GORDON C. MILLS, Ph.D., Biochemistry Emeritus, UT Medical Center, Galveston

24. ROBERT PRUD'HOMME, Ph. D. Chemical Engineering, Princeton University

25. ALVIN PLANTINGA, Ph.D. Philosophy, University of Notre Dame

26. GEORGE LEBO, Ph.D. Astronomy, University of Florida

27. JOHN FANTUZZO, Ph.D. Psychology in Education, University of Pennsylvania

28. WALTER BRADLEY, Ph.D. Chairman, Mechanical Engineering, Texas A & M University

29. DONALD L. EWERT, Ph.D. Molecular Biology, Director of Research Administration, Wistar Institute

30. DOUGLAS LAUFFENBERGER, Ph.D. Cell & Structural Biology, University of Illinois

32. JACK OMDAHL, Ph.D. Biochemistry, University of New Mexico

33. JOSEPH M. MELUCHAMP, Ph.D. Management Science, University of Alabama

34. KIRK LARSEN, Ph.D. Zoology, Miami University (Ohio)

35. PAUL CHIEN, Ph.D. Biology, University of San Francisco

36. WILLIAM SANDINE, Ph.D. Microbiology, Oregon State University

37. H. C. HlNRICHS, Ph. D. Physics, Linfield College

38. WILLIAM STUNTZ, J.D. Law Faculty, University of Virginia

39. CHRIS LITTLER, Ph.D. Physics, N.Texas State University

40. JOHN ANGUS CAMPBELL, Ph.D. Speech Communication, University of Washington

41. T. RICK IRVIN, Ph.D. Institute for Environmental Studies, Louisiana State University

42. DAVID WILCOX, Ph.D. Biology, Eastern College

43. STEPHEN FAWL, Ph.D. Chemistry, Napa Valley College

44. OTTO HELWEG, Ph.D. Civil Engineering, Memphis State University

45. J. GARY EDEN, Ph. D. Elect. & Computer Engineering, University of Illinois

46. H. KEITH MILLER, Ph.D. Biology (ret.), Capital University

47. JOHN COGDELL, Ph.D. Elect. & Computer Engineering, University of Texas, Austin

And others....

48. Brenda Peirson, Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Louisiana College, as seen in her testimony supporting academic freedom to challenge evolution.

49. Caroline Crocker, Ph.D. Immunopharmacology University of Southampton, as seen in Expelled.

50. Murray Eden, former professor of electrical engineering at MIT, sees chance evolution as "highly implausible" as seen in his article "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory" in "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation", pg. 109.

51. Marcel P. Schutzenberger, Mathematician, Professor at Univ. of Paris, in "Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution" from "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Intepretation")

52. Pierre P. Grasse in "The Evolution of Living Organisms" (see og, 3m 607m 104-7, 210-11, 244-246)

53. H. S. Lipson, British Physicist (see "A Physicist Looks at Evolution" 31 Physics Bulletin 138, 138 (1980)).

54. EJ Ambrose, "The Nature and Origin of the Biological World" (1982)

55. R. Fondi, Italian paleontologist, in Dopo Darwin: Critica all' Evoluzionismo (1980)

56. G. Sermonti, senior editor of Rivista di Biologia (Biology Forum), professor of genetics at University of Perugia, and former director of the Genetics Institute of the University of Palermo (Italy), see: Dopo Darwin: Critica all' Evoluzionismo (1980)

57. Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London) as seen in his address to the American Museum of Natural History (Nov. 5, 1981).

58. Chris Mammoliti, chief of the Environmental Services Section of the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, publicly expressed doubts of evolution during the recent Kansas debates and member of the IDnet Board of Directors.

59. John Baumgardner, (Ph.D. in Geophysics & Space Physics, UCLA) geophysicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. See Highlights of the Los Alamos Origins Debate.

60. Roland F. Hirsch, see his Distinguished Service Award Address for the American Chemical Society Division of Analytical Chemistry

61. Leith, B. in "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London (1982).

62. Bird, Wendell R., 1991. The Origin of Species Revisited: The Theories of Evolution and Abrupt Appearance. 2 vol. (NY: Philosophical Library). [original copyright 1988, renewed in 1989, 1991]

63. Cohen, I.L., 1984. Darwin was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities. (Greenvale, NY: New Research Publications)

64. Coppedge, James F., 1973. Evolution, Possible or Impossible? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan)

65. Davis, P. in Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, 2nd ed. (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co. 1993)

66. Dean H. Kenyon in Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, 2nd ed. (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co. 1993)

67. Kerkut, G. A. 1960. Implications of Evolution. (Elkins Park, PA: Franklin Book Co.)

68. MacBeth, Norman, 1971. Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason. (Boston: Gambit.)

69. McCann, Lester J., "Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism". (College of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN)

70. Moorhead, P.S. 1967. Mathematical Challenges to the Neo- Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution. (Philadelphia: Winstar Institute Press.)

71. M. Kaplan, Eds. 1967. Mathematical Challenges to the Neo- Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution. (Philadelphia: Winstar Institute Press.)

72. Spetner, Lee M., 1997. Not a Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. (Brooklyn, NY: Judaica Press.)

73. Sunderland, Luther D., 1988. Darwin's Enigma. (El Cajon, CA:
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 4:36:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
73. Sunderland, Luther D., 1988. Darwin's Enigma. (El Cajon, CA: Creation Life Publishers)

74. Wilder-Smith, A. E. (now deceased). Earned doctorates (The first in physical organic chemistry, Reading U. England), master of seven languages, positions included Full Professor of Pharmacology, U. of Bergen Medical School, Norway; Full Professor of Pharmacology, U. of Illinois Medical Center (received 3 Golden Apple awards). See his The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution. (San Diego, CA: Master Books, 1981).

75. Baum RF. Coming to grips with Darwin. Intercollegiate Review (Fall), p 13-23 (1975)

76. Bethell T. 1976. Darwin's mistake. Harper's Magazine (Feb.), p 70-75

77. Thompson WR. 1958. Introduction to the new centennial edition of The Origin of Species

78. Kurt Wise, Ph.D. Paleontology, Harvard (See The Origin of Life's Major Groups in The Creation Hypothesis)

79. Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. Theology (Yale), Ph.D. Molecular and Developmental biology (Berkeley). See Icons of Evolution.

80. Charles Thaxton, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry (Iowa State University), Department of Natural Sciences, Charles University. See The Mystery of Life's Origin

81. David K. DeWolf (Yale & Stanford), Professor of Law at Gonzaga School of Law in Spokane Washington.

82. Phillip Johnson, PhD., professor of Law at Berkeley. See, for instance, his book, Darwin on Trial.

83. Hugh Ross, (Ph.D. in Astronomy University of Toronto). Director of Reasons to Believe, see his, "Evidences for Design in the Universe".

84. Paul Nelson, Ph.D. Philosophy (University of Chicago), see his thesis On Common Descent

85. Mark E. Whalon, Ph.D., now at Michigan State University Center for Integrated Plant Systems, moderator of the Biological Evidence for Design session at the "Mere Creation conference.

86. Scott Minnich, Associate Professor of Microbiology at the University of Idaho, speaking at the "Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe conference at Yale University".

87. Siegfried Scherer, Ph.D Biology (Univ. of Konstanz, Germany) Professor of Microbial Ecology at Technical University of Munich. See his talk, "Basic Types of Life: Evidence for Design from Taxonomy" at the "Mere Creation conference.

88. David Berlinski, Ph.D. (Mathematics, Princeton University): see the abstract for his talk, "Radical Darwinism" at Mere Creation conference.

89. Wayne Frair, Ph.D. in biochemical taxonomy (Rutgers), Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. See his comments at "Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution? A Bridge to Nowhere?".

90. Don Batten, PhD (Agronomy and Horticultural Science, University of Sydney). See His biography.

91. Carl Wieland, MD. See his biography.

92. Andrew Snelling. PhD Geology University of Sydney. See his biography.

93. David Catchpoole, PhD. Plant physiologist. See his biogrpahy.

94. Donald Chittick, Ph.D physical chemistry. See his biography.

95. Jack Cuozzo, D.D.S. University of Pennsylvania. See his biography.

96. Henry de Roos, BS and MS - University of Guelph, Education degree - University of Western Ontario. See his biography.

97. Don DeYoung, Michigan Tech University (B.S., M.S., Physics), Iowa State University (Ph.D., Physics), Grace Seminary (M.Div.). See his biography.

98. Ted Driggers, Ph.D. in Operations Research (U.C. Berkeley). See his biography.

99. Alan Galbraith, Ph.D. in watershed science is from Colorado State University. See his interview.

100. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics, Louisiana State University. See his biography.

101. David Menton, Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University. See his biography.

102. Gary Parker, B.A. in Biology/Chemistry, M.S. in Biology/Physiology, Ed.D. in Biology/Geology (Ball State University). See his biography.

103. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ph.D. in Spectroscopy (Physical Chemistry). See his biography.

104. Tasman Bruce Walker, Ph.D. mechanical engineering. See his biography.

105. A.J. Monty White, Ph.D. Chemistry (University of Wales). See his biography.

106. Steven Austin, PhD Geology (Pennsylvania State University). See his biography.

107. Ray Bohlin, PhD (University of Texas at Dallas, molecular biology). See his biography or his book, The Natural Limits to Biological Change

108. Linn E. Carothers, Ph.D., University of Southern California, University Park, 1987. See his info page.

109. Eugene F. Chaffin, PhD Physics. See his info page.

110. Paul Ackerman, PhD (psychology) as seen at the Answers in Genesis Creationist Scientist list page and his book, The Kansas Tornado.

111. Thomas Barnes, Physicist (deceased) as seen at the Answers in Genesis Creationist Scientist list page.

112. Aw Swee-Eng, PhD (biochemistry) as seen at his info page.

113. Jerry Bergman, PhD (biology) as seen in his article, Some Biological Problems With The Natural Selection Theory.

114. Kimberly Berrine, Phd Microbiology & Immunology. As seen at the Answers in Genesis Creationist Scientist list page.

115. Andrew Bosanquet, PhD Biology, Microbiology. As seen at the Answers in Genesis Creationist Scientist list page.

116. David R. Boylan, Ph.D Chemical Engineering (Iowa State University), as seen listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

117. Larry Butler, PhD (biochemistry) as seen in the abstract for his talk, A Problem Of Missing Links At The Ultimate Primary Stage Of Evolution.

118. Harold G. Coffin (PhD, Zoology, USC). See his works, Fossils in Focus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977) or Origin by Design (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1983).

119. Brown, Robert H. (Ph.D. in Physics) University of Washington, Seattle. See, for one example, his article, Science Through the Eyes of Biblical Writers.

120. Lane P. Lester (PhD, Genetics, Professor of Biology at Emmanuel College). See his bio or his book, The Natural Limits to Biological Change

121. Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer, Ph.D. in physical anthropology. See the abstract from her talk at the Mere Creation conference.

122. Mark Armitage,

123. Forrest M. Mims, no science PhD but has published in leading scientific journals, books on electronics, and wrote for Scientific American. For a good understanding of him, read Defending Darwinism: How Far is Too Far? by Mark Hartwig.

124. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, United States Naval Academy (Ph. D., Mathematics, 1973, American University). See his My Intelligent Design Priority page describing some of his ID ideas and publications.

125. Art Chadwick, Ph.D. (Molecular Biology from University of Miami). See his Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis or A Creation/Flood Model

126. David A. DeWitt, (Dept. of Biology & Chemistry, Liberty University, Lynchburg). See his, Why Darwinism Is Incompatible With the Christian Faith.

127. William S. Harris, Ph.D. (nutritional biochemistry), Professor of Medicine at the University of Missouri at Kansas City. Member of the IDnet Board of Directors.

128. Jack Cashill, Ph.D., Executive Editor of Ingram's Magazine. Member of the IDnet Board of Directors.

129. Yongsoon Park, Ph.D. (Nutritional Biochemistry), a research scientist at the UMKC School of Medicine and member of the IDnet Board of Directors.

130. James E. Graham, licensed professional geologist, Senior Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm, member of the IDnet Board of Directors.

131. Henry Morris, Ph.D. Hydraulic Engineering (Founder and President Emeritus of ICR). See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

132. Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. (Biochemistry from UC Berkeley). Author of numerous books and widely known as a debater arguing for creationism. See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

133. John Morris, Ph.D. (Geological Engineering from Univ. of Oklahoma). President of ICR. See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists..

134. Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology (Harv
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 4:37:12 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
134. Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology (Harvard). Member of ICR, see his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

135. Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science (Colorado State University). Member of ICR, see his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

136. Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Microbiology (Texas A&M). See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

137. Jay L. Wile, Ph.D. Nuclear Chemistry (University of Rochester in New York). See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

138. Danny J. Faulkner, Ph.D. in Astronomy (Indiana University), Professor of Astronomy and Physics *University of South Carolina Lancaster). See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

139. Andrew C. McIntosh, Ph.D. Combustion Theory (Cranefield Institute of Technology). See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

140. Tom McMullen, Ph.D. History and Philosophy of Science (Indiana University). See his bio page on ICR's page of creation scientists.

141. Fazale Rana, PhD Biochemistry, Ohio University. Rana is Vice President of Science Apologetics for Reasons to believe. See, for example, his article, "A Scientific and Biblical Response to "Up from the Apes. Remarkable New Evidence Is Filling in the Story of How We Became Human"

142. Joseph A. Mastropaolo, Ph.D. Kinesiology (University of Iowa). See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

143. David P. Livingston, Jr., Ph.D. Archaeology and Ancient History (Andrews University). See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

144. John W. Oller, Jr., Ph.D. General Linguistics (University of Rochester, New York). y). See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

145. Kelly Hollowell, J.D., Ph.D. Mollecular and Cellular Pharmacology (University of Miami). See her bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

146. Raul E. Lopez, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science (Colorado State University). See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

147. Jed Macosko (Ph.D. Chemistry UC Berkeley), Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Molecular Biology, UC Berkeley. See his report in the peer-reviewed intelligent design journal, "Origins and Design": Science and the Spiritual Quest Conference: A Report.

148. Chris Macosko, PhD. Professor of Chemical Engr/Mat Sci at Twin Cities campus of Univ. of Minnesota. See his comments regarding his doubt that natural processes could produce the first cell article about his UMN class on origins.

149. Bill Monsma, PhD Ph.D. Physics? (University of Colorado), Lecturer, Physics Dept. at Augsberg College. See his comments in an article about his UMN class on origins and also in his letter to the Minnesota Daily editor.

150. Charles H. Voss, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering, Louisiana State University. Vice-President of the pro-creationist Origins Research Association.

151. Edward A. Boudreaux, Ph.D. Chemistry (Tulane University), Former Professor of Physical Chemistry, University of New Orleans. See his, "Basic Chemistry: A Testament of Creation.

152. Martin Ehde, Ph.D. Professor of Mathematics. Secretary of the pro-creationist Origins Research Association.

153. Lynn K. Carta, Ph.D. Research Plant Pathologist with the USDA. She is listed as a Reasons to believe Science Scholar.

154. Guillermo Gonzalez, PhD Astronomy, (University of Washington), Research Assistant Professor University of Washington. See his Solar System Bounces In The Right Range For Life.

155. David Rogstad, PhD. physicist at Jet Propulsion Laboratories. Member of Reasons to Believe's Board of Directors.

156. George Cleaver, PhD., Ohio State University. He is listed as a Reasons to believe Science Scholar.

157. Michael G. Strauss, PhD (UCLA), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Oklahoma. He is listed as a Reasons to believe Science Scholar.

158. Alex Metherell, PhD (medical doctor), former researcher at UC Irvine. He is listed as a Reasons to believe Science Scholar.

159. Michael Newton Keas, PhD History of Science (University of Oklahoma). See his senior fellow page at the pro-intelligent design Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture with the Discovery Institute.

160. Jay Wesley Richards, Ph.D.(honors) in philosophy and theology from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he was formerly a Teaching Fellow. See his Intelligent Design Theory: Why it Matters.

161. Wade Warren, Professor of Biology at Louisiana College, as seen in his ID the Future Podcast.

162. Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. Philosophy (Fordham University), associate professor of Philosophy, Culture & Law at Trinity International Univ. See his fellow page at the pro-intelligent design Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.

163. J. Budziszewski, Ph.D. political science (Yale University), associate professor of government and philosophy at Univ. Texas at Austin. See his, "Just the facts, please".

164. Jack Collins, Ph.D. Hebrew language (University of Liverpool, England). See his Is intelligent design a dumb idea? Current conflicts in biology".

165. Robin Collins, Ph.D. Philosophy (University of Notre Dame). See his "The Fine-Tuning Design Argument: A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God".

166. William Lane Craig, PhD philosophy (University of Birmingham, England), Phd Systematic Theology (University of Munich). See his, "Cosmos and Creator".

167. J. P. Moreland, Ph.D. philosophy (University of Southern California), professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, BIOLA University. See his "The Creation Hypothesis" (Intervarsity Press, 1994).

168. Pattle Pak-Toe Pun, Ph.D. Biology (State University of New York, Buffalo), Professor of Biology at Wheaton College. See his fellow page at the pro-intelligent design Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.

169. John Mark Reynolds, Ph.D. philosophy (University of Rochester), Professor at BIOLA University. See his fellow page at the pro-intelligent design Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.

170. Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D. mathematics (Columbia University), Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics, Oregon State University. See his "Concerning First Origins".

171. Richard Weikarth, Ph.D. modern European history (University of Iowa), Assistant Professor of History at California State University, Stanislaus. See his, "The Resurgence of Evolutionary Ethics".

172. John G. West, Ph.D. Government (Claremont Graduate School). See his "C. S. Lewis and the Materialist Menace".

173. John Omdahl, Ph.D. Physiology and Biophysics (Univ. of Kentucky), Professor at University of New Mexico. See his, "Origin of Human Language Capacity: in Whose Image?" in "The Creation Hypothesis" (Intervarsity Press, 1994).

174. Del Ratzsch, Ph.D. Philosophy (University of Massachusetts, Amherst). See his essay, "Design, Chance, and Theistic Evolution" in "Mere Creation" (Intervarsity Press, 1998).

175. Robert C. Newman, PhD Astrophysics (Cornell University). See his essay, "Artificial Life & Cellular Automata" in "Mere Creation" (Intervarsity Press, 1998).

176. Arthur Constance, PhD (Anthropology) in "Evolution: An Irrational Faith" in Evolution or Creation? Vol. 4- The Doorway Papers (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 173-74.

177. Robert E.D.Clark (Ph.D. organic Chemistry, Cambridge University). See his, "The Universe: Plan or Accident?" (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1972).

178. Lyle H. Jenson, PhD (some Chemistry field), Professor Emeritus University of Washington. Physical chemist, did pioneering work in X-ray crystallography. He's a great scientist and close relative of an IDEA Club member; infoatideacenter.org for contact info.

179. Guy Berthault, Professor of Sedimentology, member of French Geological Society. See, for example, his, Experiments in Stratification".

180. Dr. Werner Gitt (Ph.D. Engineering, Technical University of Hanover), director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology. See his book, "In the Beginning was Information".

1
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 4:37:49 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
181. Maciej Gierttych, Ph.D. (plant physiology), Professor and director of the Genetics Dept. at the Academia de Polonia (in Poland). See his involvement with the video, "La Evoluci"n "Ciencia o Creencia?".

182. E.H. Andrews, PhD Professor of Materials, Queen Mary University of London. See his book, "From Nothing to Nature".

183. Frank Salisbury (PhD Caltech, Professor Emeritus in Plant Science at Utah State University). See his "Doubts About the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution", American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 338.

184. Hubert P. Yockey (PhD, Physics UC Berkeley). See his book "Information Theory and Molecular Biology" (1992, Cambridge University Press) or his article "Life on Mars, Did it Come from Earth?" in the pro-ID Origins & Design journal, vol. 18, no. 1.

185. Mark Hartwig (PhD educational psychology, UCSB). See his, "The World of Design" among many other articles.

186. James R. Hofmann, Ph. D. (History and Philosophy of Science, Univ. of Pittsburgh, professor at California State University Fullerton). See his, "Data, Theory, and Evolutionary Phenomena", in Origins & Design (vol.17, no.2, pp. 6-9).

187. Philip S. Skell (PhD, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Penn State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences). See his letter to the editor, About science curriculum from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

188. Gregg Wilkerson (Ph.D. Geology from University of Texas). He is listed as a friend of the Access Research Network, a pro-ID group which grew out of an organization he cofounded.

189. Phillip Bishop (EdD, professor of exercise physiology at the University of Alabama). See his, "Evidence of God in Human Physiology--Fearfully and Wonderfully Made.

190. Robert H. Eckel (M.D.), Technical Advisory Board member of the Institute for Creation Research as seen on their Creation Scientists Page.

191. Alexander V. Lalomov, Ph.D. Submarine Geology (USSR National Research Institute of Ocean Geology) listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

192. Ian Macreadie, Ph.D. Molecular Biology (Monash University in Australia), Adjunct Professor of RMIT University. Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

193. Lyubka P. Tantcheva, Ph.D. Biochemical Toxicology, Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

194. Walter J. Veith, Ph.D. Zoology (University of Cape Town). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page. See also his Amazing DiscoveriesVideo series.

195. John K.G. Kramer, Ph.D. Biochemistry (University of Minnesota). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

196. Benjamin Aaron, M.D. Board Member) of the Institute for Creation Research as seen on their Creation Scientists Page.

197. Alan Gillen, Ed.D. Science Education (University of Houston), M. S. Zoology from Ohio State University. Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

198. Edmond W. Holroyd, III Ph.D. Atmospheric Science (University of New York at Albany), listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

199. Todd Wood, Ph.D. Genetics listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

200. John Meyer, Ph.D. Zoology (Iowa State University). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

201. Theodore Rybka, Ph.D. Physics - (University of Oklahoma). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

202. William Bauer, Ph.D. Hydraulics (University of Iowa). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

203. Edward Blick, Ph.D. Engineering Science (University of Oklahoma). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

204. Richard D. Lumsden, Ph.D. Biology (Rice University). Former Professor of Parasitology and Cell Biology and Dean of the Tulane University Graduate School. Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Biological Creation Scientists Page (as former Chair of ICR's Grad School Biology Dept. 1990-1996).

205. Donald Hamann, Ph.D. Agricultural Science (Virginia Tech). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

206. Harold Henry, Ph.D. Fluid Mechanics (Columbia University). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

207. Joseph Henson, Ph.D. Entomology (Clemson University). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

208. John Moore, Ed.D. Biology (Michigan State University). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

209. Jean Morton, Ph.D. Cellular Studies (George Washington University). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

210. Andre Eggen, Ph.D. Genetics (Federal Institute of Technology). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

211. Carl Fliermans Ph.D. Biology (Indiana University). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

212. Robert Franks, M.D. (UCLA). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

213. Pierre Jerlstrom, Ph.D. Molecular Biology (Griffith University, Australia). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

214. George Lindsey, Ed.D. Science Education (East Texas State University). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

215. John Marcus, Ph.D. Biochemistry (University of Michigan). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

216. George Marshall, Ph.D. Opthalmic Science (University of Glasgow). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

217. Joachim Scheven, Ph.D. (Zoologist/Palaeontologist) (University. of Munich). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

218. Emil Silvestru, Ph.D. Geology (Babes-Bolyai University, Romania). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

219. Bryant Wood, Ph.D. Archaeology (University of Toronto). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

220. Patrick Young, Ph.D. Chemistry (Ohio University). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

221. Jeremy Walter, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering (Pennsylvania State University). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

222. Ariel Roth, Ph.D. Biology (University of Michigan). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

223. John Rankin, Ph.D. Mathematical Physics (University of Adelaide). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

224. Bob Hosken, Ph.D. Biochemistry (University of Newcastle). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

225. James Allan, Ph.D. Genetics (University of Edinburgh). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

226. George Javor, Ph.D. Biochemistry (Columbia University, NY). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

227. Dwain Ford, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry (Clark University). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

228. Angela Meyer, Ph.D. Horticultural Science (University of Sydney). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

229. Stephen Brocott, Ph.D. Organometallic Chemistry (University of Western Australia). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

230. Nancy Darrall, Ph.D. Botany (University of Wales). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

231. John Cimbala, Ph.D. Aeronautics (Cal Tech). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

232. E Theo Agard, Ph.D. Physics (University of Lon
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 4:38:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
233. Ker Thompson, D.Sc. Geophysics (Colorado School of Mines). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

234. Arthur Jones, Ph.D. Biology (University of Birmingham). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

235. George Howe, Ph.D. Botany (Ohio State University). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

236. D. B. Gower, Ph.D. Biochemistry (University of London). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

237. Stephen Taylor, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering (University of Liverpool). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

238. Colin Mitchell, Ph.D. Geography (University of Cambridge). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

239. Stanley Mumma, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering (University of Illinois). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

240. Evan Jamieson, Ph.D. Hydrometallurgy (Murdoch University). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

241. Geoff Downes, Ph.D. Tree Physiology (Univesrity of Melbourne). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

242. Wayne Frair, Ph.D. Biochemical Taxonomy (Rutgers University). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

243. Sid Cole, Ph.D. Chemistry (University of Newcastle). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

244. J.H. John Peet, Ph.D. Photchemistry (Wolverhampton Polytechnic). Listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

245. Benjamin Wiker, PhD. (Now at Franciscan University of Steubenville, Department of Classics and Honors). See his "Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists".

246. Neil Broom, (PhD and now Associate Professor of chemicals and materials engineering at the University of Auckland, New Zealand). See his "How Blind is the Watchmaker".

247. Douglas Groothius, PhD Philosophy (University of Oregon), Associate Professor of Religion and Ethics at Denver Seminary. See his Access Research Network featured author page.

248. Edward Peltzer (PhD Oceanography, Scripps Institution for Oceanography), Senior Research Specialist at Monterey Bay Research Institute. See his talk presented at the "Darwin Design and Democracy II" Conference.

249. Joseph W. Francis, Associate Professor of Biology (Cedarville College, Ohio), Ph.D. Cell Biology (Wayne State). See his Peering into Darwin's Black Box: The cell divsion processes required for bacterial life.

250. David Tyler (Ph.D., Management Science, University of Manchester; M.Sc., Physics, Loughborough University).

The following scientists (numbers 251-320) are listed on a list of 100 Scientists that agree with the statement, "I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." :

251. Frank Tipler; Prof. of Mathematical Physics, Tulane University.

252. Walter Hearn; PhD Biochemistry-University of Illinois

253. Tony Mega; Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry, Whitworth College

254. Marko Horb; Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, University of Bath, UK

255. Daniel Kubler; Asst. Prof. of Biology, Franciscan University of Steubenville

256. David Keller; Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry, University of New Mexico

257. James Keesling; Prof. of Mathematics, University of Florida

258. Carl Koval; Prof. Chemistry & Biochemistry, University of Colorado, Boulder

259. Tony Jelsma; Prof. of Biology, Dordt College

260. Timothy G. Standish; PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason University

261. James Keener; Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering, University of Utah

262. Robert J. Marks; Prof. of Signal & Image Processing, University of Washington

263. Carl Poppe; Senior Fellow, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories

264. Gregory Shearer; Internal Medicine, Research, University of California, Davis

265. Joseph Atkinson; PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T., American Chemical Society, member

266. Lawrence H. Johnston; Emeritus Prof. of Physics: University of Idaho

267. Theodor Liss; PhD Chemistry-M.I.T.

267. Braxton Alfred; Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology, University of British Columbia

268. Paul D. Brown; Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies; Trinity Western University (Canada)

269. Marvin Fritzler; Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, University of Calgary, Medical School

270. Theodore Saito; Project Manager, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories

271. Muzaffar Iqbal; PhD Chemistry-University of Saskatchewan; Center for Theology the Natural Sciences

272. William S. Pelletier; Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry, University of Georgia, Athens

273. Keith Delaplane; Prof. of Entomology, University of Georgia

274. Ken Smith; Prof. of Mathematics, Central Michigan University

275. Clarence Fouche; Prof. of Biology, Virginia Intermont College

276. Thomas Milner; Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering, University of Texas, Austin

277. Brian J. Miller; PhD Physics-Duke University

278. Paul Nesselroade; Assoc. Prof. of Psychology, Simpson College

279. Donald F. Calbreath; Prof. of Chemistry, Whitworth College

280. William P. Purcell; PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton University

281. Wesley Allen; Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia

282. Jeanne Drisko; Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center, University of Kansas, School of Medicine

282. Chris Grace; Assoc. Prof. of Psychology, Biola University

283. Rosalind Picard; Assoc. Prof. Computer Science, M.I.T.

284. Garrick Little; Senior Scientist, Li-Cor, Li-Cor

285. Martin Poenie; Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology, University of Texas, Austin

286. Russell W. Carlson; Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, University of Georgia

287. Hugh Nutley; Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering, Seattle Pacific U.

288. John Bloom; Assoc. Prof., Physics, Biola University

289. Fred Skiff; Prof. of Physics, University of Iowa

290. Paul Kuld; Assoc. Prof., Biological Science, Biola University

291. Moorad Alexanian; Prof. of Physics, University of North Carolina, Wilmington

292. Thomas Saleska; Prof. of Biology, Concordia University

293. Ralph W. Seelke; Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Superior

294. James G. Harman; Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Texas Tech University

295. Lennart Moller; Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, University of Stockholm

296. Michael Atchison; Prof. of Biochemistry, University of Pennsylvania, Vet School

297. Rebecca W. Keller; Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, University of New Mexico

298. Terry Morrison; PhD Chemistry-Syracuse University

299. Robert F. DeHaan; PhD Human Development-University of Chicago

300. Matti Lesola; Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki University of Technology

301. Bruce Evans; Assoc. Prof. of Biology, Huntington College

302. Jim Gibson; PhD Biology-Loma Linda University

303. David Ness; PhD Anthropology-Temple University

304. Bijan Nemati; Senior Engineer, Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA)

305. Stan E. Lennard; Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery, University of Washington

306. Rafe Payne; Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences, Biola University

307. Phillip Savage; Prof. of Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan

308. Daniel Dix; Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics, University of South Carolina

309. Ed Karlow; Chair, Dept. of Physics, LaSierra University

310. James Harbrecht; Clinical Assoc. Prof., University of Kansas Medical Center

311. Robert W. Smith; Prof. of Chemistry, University of Nebraska, Omaha

312. Robert DiSilvestro; Ph
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 4:38:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
313. David Prentice; Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences, Indiana State University

314. Walt Stangl; Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics, Biola University

315. James Tour; Chao Prof. of Chemistry, Rice University

316. Todd Watson; Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry, Texas A & M University

317. Robert Waltzer; Assoc. Prof. of Biology, Belhaven College

318. Vincente Villa; Prof. of Biology, Southwestern University

319. Richard Sternberg: Postdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute

320. James Tumlin; Assoc. Prof. of Medicine, Emory University

321. David A. Kaufmann, Ph.D. Anatomy, Univ. of Iowa Prof. of Exercise Science, Univ. of Florida (retired). Secretary of Creation Research Society Board of Directors.

322. Glen W. Wolfrom, Ph.D., Animal Science, Univ. of Mo. Clinical Research Scientist, Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. Membership Secretary of Creation Research Society Board of Directors.

323. Theodore P. Aufdemberge, Ph.D. Physical Geography, Univ. of Michigan Prof. of Geography and Earth Science, Concordia College (retired). Financial Secretary of Creation Research Society Board of Directors.

324. Emmett L. Williams, Ph.D. Materials Engineering, Clemson Univ. Scientist, Lockheed-Georgia Co. (retired). Editor of Creation Research Society Quarterly as seen on the Creation Research Society Board of Directors page.

325. Gary H. LocklairPh. D. ABD, Computer Science, NSU, Asst. Prof. and Chair of Computer Science, Concordia University Wisconsin. Listed on Creation Research Society's Board of Directors.

326. John K. Reed Ph.D. Geology, Univ. of South Carolina, Principal Engineer, Westinghouse Savannah River Company. Listed on Creation Research Society's Board of Directors.

327. Ronald G. Samec, Ph.D. Physics, Clemson Univ., Chair, Science Education, Prof. Physics and Astronomy, Bob Jones Univ. Listed on Creation Research Society's Board of Directors.

328. Sharon K. Bullock, Ph.D. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, see her bio on the Institute for Creation Research's page of Creation Scientists.

329. Gregory J. Brewer, Ph.D. Biology (UCSD), Professor of Neurology and Medical Microbiology at Southern Illinois University. See his "The Imminent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design".

330. Keith H. Wanser, Ph.D. Condensed Matter Physics, professor of physics at California State University, Fullerton. See his bio on the Institute for Creation Research's page of Creation Scientists.

331. Arlo Moehlenpah, D.Sc. Chemical Engineering, has served on the faculties of Macalester College, Wisconsin State University, and San Joaquin Delta College. See his bio on the Institute for Creation Research's page of Creation Scientists.

332. Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Ph.D. Engineering Mechanics, Professor Emeritus of Aerospace Engineering at Auburn University. See his bio on the Institute for Creation Research's page of Creation Scientists.

333. David A. Demick, M.D. See his bio on the Institute for Creation Research's page of Creation Scientists.

334. John Silvius, Ph.D. Plant Physiology - West Virginia. See his name on the Institute for Creation Research's list of Creation Scientists.

335. Terry Mortenson, Ph.D. in history of geology, Coventry University, England. See his bio on Answers in Genesis website.

336. John C. Whitcomb, Th.D. served as Professor of Theology and Old Testament at Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, IN, for 38 years. See his bio on Answers in Genesis website.

337. Prof. Vladimir Betina, PhD, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page.

338. Prof. Sung-Do Cha, PhD Physics. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page.

339. Choong-Kuk Chang, PhD, Genetics, Princeton University. Described in Creation Science In Korea.

340. Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering, PhD. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page.

341. Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education, PhD. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page.

342. Bob Compton, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (from Washington State University), Ph.D. in Physiology (University of Wisconsin/Madison). See his bio on Answers in Genesis website.

343. Lionel Dahmer, PhD Organic Chemistry. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page and reported as technical review liason for Earth and Planetary Science papers for the 4th International Conference on Creationism.

344. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging, as seen on his bio page. (see also this interesting Scientific American article about him.

345. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist, PhD. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page or see his "Genes -- created but evolving". In Concepts in Creationism, E.H. Andrews, W. Gitt, and W.J. Ouweneel (eds.), pp. 241-266. Herts, England: Evangelical Press.

346. Douglas Dean, Ph.D. in Biology, as listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page.

347. Stephen W. Deckard (Ed.D. Univesity of Sarasota), Assistant Professor of Education. See his bio on the Answers in Genesis website.

348. Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics (Ed.D. Univesity of Southern California). See his bio on the Answers in Genesis website.

349. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist (Ph.D. (1981), University of Western Australia in the field of organometallic chemistry of optically active metal complexes), Adjunct Professor of Chemistry at an Australian University. Member of Royal Australian Chemical Institute and American Chemical Society. See his bio on the Answers in Genesis website.

350. Barry Harker, PhD., Philosopher. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page.

351. Charles W. Harrison, Ph.D. Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page.

352. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist, Ph.D. (air pollution meteorology from Macquarie University). See his bio on ChristianAnswers.net.

353. Margaret Helder, Botanist, PhD. See her bio page on the Answers in Genesis website or find some of her articles on the Creation Science Association of Alberta website.

354. Jonathan Henry, PhD Astronomy, See his "The Astronomy Book." a book about our solar system, galaxy and universe from a biblical creationist perspective. Also listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page.

355. Jonathan W. Jones, M.D. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page.

356. Raymond Jones, Creationist Agricultural Scientist, receiver of CSIRO Gold Medal for Research Excellence. See his bio or interview on the Answers in Genesis website.

357. Valery Karpounin, PhD (a Mathematical Science). Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page.

358. Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page.

359. Harriet Kim, Ph.D. Biochemistry (University of Wisconsin). Currently at Seoul National University, as described on Creation Science In Korea.

360. Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page.

361. Jung-Han Kim (Professor Yonse University) Ph.D. Organic Chemistry (University of Houston). See Creation Science In Korea.

362. Jung-Wook Kim, Ph.D. Environmental Science (Professor at Seoul National University) as seen at Creation Science in Korea and listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page.

363. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page.

364. Young-Gil Kim, Ph.D. Materials Science (Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute), currently at Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology; former research scientist at NASA-Lewis Research Center and visiting professor at UCLA. See Creation Science in Korea.

365. Young In Kim, Ph.D. Engineering. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page.

366. Dr John W. Klotz, Ph.D Biology (University of Pittsburgh), former Profes
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 4:48:27 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Need i go on? All of these and more have expressed skepticism of Darwinism.

"That's your BOP, not mine."

No, i want some evidence you arent begging the question.

"god doesnt exist"
"therefore evolution is true".

Show me how you have not arrived at evolution necessarily because of the question you have asked.

"On the contrary: http://www.talkorigins.org...... "

"Creation and evolution are the only two models of origins. ", Point proven. My point, not yours.

As for that crap about conspiracy. It is irrational to dismiss a conspiracy because you are scared of the word, or you expect other people to be. You are relying on social conformity and show the influence of social engineering.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 5:04:53 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 3/21/2014 4:35:26 PM, andymcstab wrote:
Is this a discussion or a spamfest?

I'm tackling your BS in detail, and actually providing evidence for my claims, which is more than you've done.

Stuff

So basically, you failed the challenge. The vast majority of the people you listed were also signatories of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Much of those signatories came from unrelated academic subjects. Not to mention they represent a truly pitiful percentage of scientists when the overwhelming consensus of scientists and biologists especially supports evolution. Plus the vast majority of the people on that list don't have any academic affiliations or any publications in credible science journals.

Plus it took so many years for Dissent from Darwinism to reach its signatures, whereas Project Steve managed in a short time to gain more signatories from scientists just named Steve in support of evolution, with 51% of them being biologists, as opposed to the serious lack of them in Dissent from Darwinism. Furthermore, a different counter-petition, A Scientific Support For Darwinism, achieved 7,733 signatories in just 4 days. Kinda says it all about just how pathetically insignificant your side is, really.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 5:10:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 3/21/2014 4:48:27 PM, andymcstab wrote:
Need i go on? All of these and more have expressed skepticism of Darwinism.

Yes, and they're part of a pitiful minority. The magic bullet has not been remotely produced.

No, i want some evidence you arent begging the question.

I can't prove a negative. You're the one who asserted it in the first place, so it is in fact your BOP.

"god doesnt exist"
"therefore evolution is true".

Show me how you have not arrived at evolution necessarily because of the question you have asked.

I have never used that logic of god not existing therefore evolution being true. The two are unrelated. I am an atheist, but that gives me no reason to care if evolution is factual unless any theory that replaces it invokes a God.

"Creation and evolution are the only two models of origins. ", Point proven. My point, not yours.

It's an article debunking that statement, you moron. Learn to read past the title. Yeesh.

As for that crap about conspiracy. It is irrational to dismiss a conspiracy because you are scared of the word, or you expect other people to be. You are relying on social conformity and show the influence of social engineering.

I've heavily debunked the notion of conspiracy, and if you want to show how a conspiracy is possible, demonstrate how it is so with hard evidence. Until then, you're just full of sh!t, good sir.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 5:21:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
We cannot make a single workable model of evolution. We can make models of any theory proven to be true, but no one has ever found a working model for evolution. You should be able to type the laws into a computer, and watch the computer develop intelligent life. It just doesnt happen. Infact it only happens when you remove evolution from the equation.

Nested set heirachy? A very well understood mathematical model that deals with branching chains, which life fits pretty much perfectly to today. A proper understanding of which allows predictions and reterodictions to be made
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 5:49:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 3/21/2014 5:21:08 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
We cannot make a single workable model of evolution. We can make models of any theory proven to be true, but no one has ever found a working model for evolution. You should be able to type the laws into a computer, and watch the computer develop intelligent life. It just doesnt happen. Infact it only happens when you remove evolution from the equation.


Nested set heirachy? A very well understood mathematical model that deals with branching chains, which life fits pretty much perfectly to today. A proper understanding of which allows predictions and reterodictions to be made

Nothing to do with the process of evolution.
Evolution, necessarily starting as a very simple process with just a few molecules, should be easy to model in a computer. We should be able to speed up the cycles and watch intelligent life emerge. But it doesn't work. If we had a good theory of evolution, or if any claims that we understand evolution are true, it should be very simple.
Dragonfang
Posts: 788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 6:26:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
As andy said, evolution is a historical hypothesis that does not offer any real scientific explanation or demonstrations of those hypothetical mechanisms.

If you mean evolution in the sense of genetic variations and genetic difference between generations, then sure; no one is denying that.
However, their effect and mechanisms compared to the claims of Darwinian evolution that the offspring of a single cell produced all the diversity of life is simply insignificant as far as evidence can tell.

All it offers is connecting the dots in a certain oversimplified way that it suits naturalism without offering a physical cause & effect scientific explanation.

Since there isn't much evidence for hypothesis like multicellular organisms having a unicellular ancestor, fossil evidence would be the best evidence for Darwinian evolution.
Ignoring the whole Cambrian period affair (And how biological organs somehow widely spread from tiny minority), species remain practically the same for millions of years to disappear and be replaced with other species. As simple as that. If there was an actual gradual evolution rather than automobile-like model appearance, like limbs growing and organs developing and so forth (after millions of years!), then the theory would be credible. Which is not the case.
However, as long as there are evident-less question begging ad-hocs like convergent evolution and punctured equilibrium, Darwinian evolution is simple intangible. Unable to touch anything or receive a "magic" bullet.
Debate: Atheism Has No Burden of Proof

http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 6:30:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 3/21/2014 5:49:51 PM, andymcstab wrote:
At 3/21/2014 5:21:08 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
We cannot make a single workable model of evolution. We can make models of any theory proven to be true, but no one has ever found a working model for evolution. You should be able to type the laws into a computer, and watch the computer develop intelligent life. It just doesnt happen. Infact it only happens when you remove evolution from the equation.


Nested set heirachy? A very well understood mathematical model that deals with branching chains, which life fits pretty much perfectly to today. A proper understanding of which allows predictions and reterodictions to be made

Nothing to do with the process of evolution.
Evolution, necessarily starting as a very simple process with just a few molecules, should be easy to model in a computer. We should be able to speed up the cycles and watch intelligent life emerge. But it doesn't work. If we had a good theory of evolution, or if any claims that we understand evolution are true, it should be very simple.

Actually it has everything to do with the process of evolution, as it is a fundemental prediction of common ancestry.

This and the fact you attempt to attack abiogenesis, or virtual abiogenesis even is a big red flag that you don't know what you are talking about.

Furthermore, as someone who has worked with computational chemistry, attempting to simulate anything remotely as complex as even a single protein is nigh impossible to do with the precision needed.

It's just not that easy.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 9:57:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Your posts starts ot misunderstanding ID. ID can sit well with universal common descent, but not with the principal evolutionary mechanis.s. It. The problem ID with respect to the TOE is specifically the ability of RM and NS to do what is required of them. The can't and honest researchers have documented that fact for decades now. RM and NS are still useful for relatively trivial changes though.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 6:50:05 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 3/21/2014 6:26:35 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
As andy said, evolution is a historical hypothesis that does not offer any real scientific explanation or demonstrations of those hypothetical mechanisms.

Bare assertion claimed without evidence. Rejected. I have demonstrated otherwise with actual evidence in this thread.

If you mean evolution in the sense of genetic variations and genetic difference between generations, then sure; no one is denying that.
However, their effect and mechanisms compared to the claims of Darwinian evolution that the offspring of a single cell produced all the diversity of life is simply insignificant as far as evidence can tell.

Bare assertion claimed without evidence. Rejected. I have demonstrated otherwise with actual evidence in this thread.

All it offers is connecting the dots in a certain oversimplified way that it suits naturalism without offering a physical cause & effect scientific explanation.

Bare assertion claimed without evidence. Rejected. I have demonstrated otherwise with actual evidence in this thread.

Since there isn't much evidence for hypothesis like multicellular organisms having a unicellular ancestor, fossil evidence would be the best evidence for Darwinian evolution.

And it more than supports evolutionary theory. I have demonstrated this in this thread.

Ignoring the whole Cambrian period affair (And how biological organs somehow widely spread from tiny minority), species remain practically the same for millions of years to disappear and be replaced with other species. As simple as that. If there was an actual gradual evolution rather than automobile-like model appearance, like limbs growing and organs developing and so forth (after millions of years!), then the theory would be credible. Which is not the case.

Bare assertion no evidence etc.

However, as long as there are evident-less question begging ad-hocs like convergent evolution and punctured equilibrium, Darwinian evolution is simple intangible. Unable to touch anything or receive a "magic" bullet.

There are plenty of ways to potentially falsify evolutionary theory. And I have demonstrated with evidence that evolutionary theory is NOT intangible and actually has real world effects and practical uses that stem from what we're able to gain from research into evolutionary theory, like the billion dollar industry bioinformatics.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 6:55:06 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 3/21/2014 9:57:54 PM, Iredia wrote:
Your posts starts ot misunderstanding ID. ID can sit well with universal common descent, but not with the principal evolutionary mechanis.s. It. The problem ID with respect to the TOE is specifically the ability of RM and NS to do what is required of them. The can't and honest researchers have documented that fact for decades now. RM and NS are still useful for relatively trivial changes though.

Evidence has been shown they can do what is required of them and that they are useful for more than just "trivial changes". Again, if there really is this super powerful evidence to debunk even those principal evolutionary mechanics, it would be a big deal and you guys responsible for producing the magical bullet that shoots down evolution would be lavished with prizes and acclaim in the scientific field and would be spending your days swimming in vaults of money a la Scrooge McDuck. Again, why the reluctance to actually get out there in the scientific field, produce this super powerful evidence, and become millionaires as a result?