Creation vs. Evolution

[Hank49]

In my spare time I do roam the neighborhoods attempting to convert Christians...does not everyone? .

I have a cousin who answered the door naked the third time some kind older missionary ladies knocked on the door, after he politely explained the first two times that he had his own beliefs. (I don't condone this type of behavior but at the time it was pretty funny)

 

[Thalassamania]

Thalassamania,

Edit: <Deleted> - I've just come across some posts you've answered previous.

I am currently going through the thread at the moment, and as stated in my previous post, may take me some time. I have noticed however, reading from the start that you called someone else "My Dear", but have jumped on me for the statement "My Friend". (Similar phrase in my books.) I'd just like to ask for a little give and take - and to please accept my original apology regarding your study as I stand corrected - you have mentioned things previous, which I've been reading through. (I have paper cuts to prove it

)

Thanks

Sounds good, welcome aboard friend.

 

[Thalassamania]

sorry to interupt...but you have to admit this pm is funny.



you must feel good knowing you have a vast audience.

We take entire busloads of scientists into the more backward areas of the midwest where we force conversion, at a minimum to the metric system, at the point of a flaming slide rule.

 

[adurso]

Hi,



No Worries adurso... I didn't quite see the joke - but hey - we are from different countries.



True - one scientist does look at the second law - but this is one scientist in 50. Correct me if I'm wrong - but I'm guessing that you've only read one of the essays - and probably found it by reference from a site designed to discredit the whole book? Check out the other 49 scientists - you may find they have more credit than you give them reference.

(I'm sure if the tables were reversed and 50 evolutionists wrote a scientific book, one or two may portray something that doesn't fit in with the current model.)


On another note - I have started going through from the beginning of the thread, but it's going to take me a while. I hope I'm permitted to at least respond to responses from original mesages. (Soggy - I'll still get back to you on the other stuff, I just need to reference what has and hasn't been said on this thread first).

Cheers

You are correct that I have only read one essay. That was on Amazon, not a site that has anything to do with creationism or evolution. I do not need to read any further. The arguements are old and tired. You mention the number of scientists in almost every post; 50 scientists from across the world are very few. Numbers do not prove or disprove one's assertions. You did ask where my book is, my publisher is Delmar Thompson, I have a new text coming out in summer 07. Of course it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Publishing is easy these days. Vanity presses abound, being published does not lend credence to one's beliefs. If this collection of essays had been peer reviewed and looked at with the proper rigor it may have received more credence.

 

[Warthaug]

You are correct that I have only read one essay. That was on Amazon, not a site that has anything to do with creationism or evolution. I do not need to read any further. The arguements are old and tired. You mention the number of scientists in almost every post; 50 scientists from across the world are very few.

Those 50 are also rather infamous in the scientific field - few (maybe none, cannot remeber) of them are in areas directly related to evolution, and many are in fields which are questionably not science (i.e. social sciences).

And yet creationists continue to say that because these particular people disagree with evolution, that the thoery of evolution is somehow in question within the scinetific community.

Numbers do not prove or disprove one's assertions.

They don't, but they can be fun. In "retaliation" for the oft-quoted "50 scientists who support evolution", the national center for science education started the "Steve's List". This is a list of scientists who publically support evolution. But there are a few caveats:

1) They must have the first name of Steve (or a derivitive thereof), and
2) They must have a Ph.D. in biology, geology, paleontology, or a related scientific field.

As of this post, project Steve was upto 764 signatures. And the other side has 50 - how many of those are a Steve? :mooner:

http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

Bryan

 

[adza]

Morning Brian,

Those 50 are also rather infamous in the scientific field - few (maybe none, cannot remeber) of them are in areas directly related to evolution, and many are in fields which are questionably not science (i.e. social sciences).

Just so I can get a greater understanding - can you please let me know the scientific fields that you would consider directly related to evolution?

Thanks

 

[Thalassamania]

Just so I can get a greater understanding - can you please let me know the scientific fields that you would consider directly related to evolution?

With some rare exceptions I'd expect an expert in evolution to have an earned Phd in one of the biological sciences from an accredited institution with a track record of research published in refereed journals. Publication of books really don't count unless the initial criteria are met, then they're a plus, unless they're published by a vanity press or some other hack organization.

In most cases citing a "Senior Scholar," "Senior Fellow" or any similar postion at a foundation or think tank that is not affiliated with a major accredited university is also a contraindication.

Engineers - no. Physicists - no. Astronomers - no. Mathematicians - no. Doctors of Divinity - no. Pharm Ds - no. MDs - no. DDSs - no. DMDs - no, EdDs - no. etc.

There are, of course, rare exceptions just as there are very rare exeptions like Kurt Wise on the anti-evolution side.

 

[H2Andy]

can you please let me know the scientific fields that you would consider directly related to evolution?

generally the biological sciences (such as biology, biophysics, ecology, zoology, antrhopology, genetics) and some of the geological sciences (earth science, paleontology, enviromental geology, etc.)

 

[Warthaug]

Morning Brian,
Just so I can get a greater understanding - can you please let me know the scientific fields that you would consider directly related to evolution?

Thanks

I'd agree with Thalassamania & H2Andy, and for that matter, with the criteria of the Steve's list - biology (all fields), paleontology, and in the occasional case, some of the other earth sciences.

In the rare instance other areas of study like anthropology/archeology also toutch on evolution, but those have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Also, those two sciences tend to be very narrowly focused - specifically on humans.

Bryan

 

[adza]

Engineers - no. Physicists - no. Astronomers - no... <etc - snip>.

So - in this "particular" argument, you don't want to hear any evidence that may point to a young earth. Makes it a little restrictive, but hey - I'll see what I can do...

BTW - For your own interest (regardless of whether you believe in evolution or creation) - I'd like to politely suggest that you take a closer look at the speed of light issue. I know it's easy to pass off - because you may see it as trying to disprove evolution, but even that aside - I think it would be of interest if you like that sort of stuff.

How about the folowing:

PhD in human biology from Columbia Pacific University, or Loma Linda University?

PhD in biology from Columbia University New York, University of Michigan, or George Manson University?

Phd in Biochemistry from the University of Minnesota or University of Newcastle?

PhD in Physical Chemistry from Victoria University, Wellington?

PhD in Botany from University of Wales, Aberystwth?

PhD in Zooology from Capetown University?

Phd in Nuclear Physics from the University of Colorado.

Geological Engineering from the University of Oklahama.

PhD in Genetics from the University of Edinburg, Scottland?

PhD in Googleology from the University of Spammakers?

Cheers