Users Online Now:
2,213
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
1,227,595
Pageviews Today:
2,046,595
Threads Today:
807
Posts Today:
14,077
08:25 PM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:mushufasa11:MV8zODg0ODk0XzcwMDQ3MzMwXzkwQUFBMkIy] [quote:Spur-Man:MV8zODg0ODk0XzcwMDQ2OTU4XzdEMDA2RkI1] [quote:mushufasa11:MV8zODg0ODk0XzcwMDQ0NjE5X0NGM0UxNTkx] [b]Both sides take a leap of faith at some point.[/b] It can be argued which side has to take more of a leap, I guess.. Is that what's going on here or do people actually think they "know"? Key to life is not being too strong in your convictions, stuck in your inevitably flawed truths. Our perceptions are so limited; logic so boxed in. Trying to find examples of "new species developing" from a process that is supposed to occur over millenia is just futile. Especially when we cannot precisely define/understand what a "species" even is. There are always exceptions in nature. Technically, one could say that through man's breeding and domestication of various plant and animal species we have observed a sped-up version evolution. A dog for example, is now a distinct species from a wolf which it was originally bred from. Off the top of my head, I do not have any examples occurring "in nature." Unless you turn to the fossil record, but to make absolute conclusions from this is problematic. So its up to you what you will accept as evidence or not. The biogenesis vs abiogenesis thing is really a non-starter, a semantic mish-mash. New discoveries may cause this discussion to change but at the moment, with the perspectives involved, it is at an impasse. Also if the “laws of physics” are universal and can never change, then the Big Bang and Intelligent Design are both equally likely(or unlikely) as both scenarios defy these laws. [/quote] Science isn't about faith. It's about creating predictive models that explain the observed facts and give us applications. When it comes to animals and plants, a species when used by biologists means a population capable of breeding and producing viable offspring. Speciation -the process where one species branches into two- has been observed both in nature and in laboratory settings. The Big Bang is a scientific theory, it does not violate the laws of physics. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It can't be tested and it doesn't make any predictions. [/quote] Whether we can really trust what we are seeing in our observations and whether our brains are capable of forming absolute conclusions from a data set is where the faith in science comes in. I am a plant biologist. I am aware that there is a scientific definition of the word "species" but as I mentioned, there are always exceptions and the definition becomes more grey than at face-value. Many different plant species are able to form viable hybrids due to chromosome doubling. Plants do a lot of weird things and the genetics can get very complex. Also where does the established definition of a species leave organisms that reproduce mainly a-sexually (like many plants and bacteria do). This type of discussion can go on and on. Humans are very reductionist in their thinking, trying to jam things into categories that are more open than we'd like to think. The Big Bang itself does not defy the laws of physics, but what caused the Bing Bang does and that's what the Creationist posters are arguing. [/quote]
Original Message
500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
snip....
"As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require — or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have — or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life — the foundation of evolution – is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact."
[
link to www.collective-evolution.com (secure)
]
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>