Hey - a monkey just posted.
What will it take to convince you, Perry? A talking Parrot?
Is Darwinism True?
by Perry 71 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
BurnTheShips
Is Darwinism True?
Define Darwinism, Perry. Then, based on your definition, we can say whether or not it has been falsified by the scientific evidence.
Young earth Creationism has been falsified again, and again, and again.
And across many scientific disciplines.
Whom Should We Believe?
You really don't want to go down this route, anyway Perry. It's a bad argument to try to make, for you. If you want to compare who has the larger penis, if someone compiled a list "Is Fundamentalist Creationism True?", more than 99% of the worlds scientists would probably make the dissenters list.
BTS
-
drwtsn32
"Darwinism" is a negative label, and opposers to evolutionary theory know it. That's why they use it.
In any case, this petition (?) is weak and ultimately meaningless.
First, many of the scientists do not hold degrees in fields even remotely related to evolutionary biology. Engineering? Geology? Physics? The ones that actually have degrees in biology carry more weight, but even that doesn't mean they are knowledgable in the subfield of evolutionary biology.
Second, several of these scientists are clearly biased as they are from Christian universities. Their religious beliefs may in fact prohibit them from accepting evolution.
Third, even if all of these people were to have PhDs in evolutionary biology, it is still a small fraction of the total number of evolutionary biologists that accept evolution.
Logical fallacies include an attempted argumentum ad populum and appeal to authority.
Science does not work on consensus. Evolutionary theory stands as valid based on the evidence we have discovered. -
-
Terry
Leoleia, now that's what I call refutation of a basic premise!
-
-
Leolaia
We are 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.
I agree 100% with this statement. The first sentence inquires about whether current scientific theory (or rather, just two mechanisms in current theory) has the ability of providing an account for the vast complexity of life. This is like asking if physics -- or rather just two phenomena within the scope of physics -- has the ability of providing an account of the origin and development of the universe. No, physics is not yet at that point; there is still much work to do. So I would be skeptical of anyone claiming such a thing. Same thing with research into the development of the complexity of life. I am skeptical that any such account could be given yet; there is still much work to do. I also doubt that such an account would involve only these two mechanisms as opposed to other potential factors; although these two mechanisms are of central importance I doubt they alone have the ability to provide an account of evolution (gene flow and genetic drift are two other mechanisms commonly cited). The second sentence simply states that "careful examination of the evidence" should be encouraged. Well, obviously, any scientific enterprise involves empirical study and there is nothing I would object to in this sentence.
And I have a PhD in the social sciences, like many of the people on the list. So.....should I go to the Discovery Institute's website and sign the list? Does it matter that I do not reject evolution as a viable scientific theory but do reject creationism as pseudoscience?
-
Perry
This is like asking if physics -- or rather just two phenomena within the scope of physics -- has the ability of providing an account of the origin and development of the universe.
Leolaia,
The impression given in the media, classrooms, and even the dominant belief on this board is that natural selection and random mutations can account for the complexity of life. I for one am encouraged to see so many of my normal opponents, come out and denounce this erroneous belief.
Thank You.
And I have a PhD in the social sciences, like many of the people on the list. So.....should I go to the Discovery Institute's website and sign the list?
Why not, you apparently agree.
Does it matter that I do not reject evolution as a viable scientific theory but do reject creationism as pseudoscience?
How do you know that Creation is false?
-
HintOfLime
Project Steve
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given nameStephen or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution". It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheekparody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution," such as the Answers in Genesis' list of scientists who accept the biblical account of the Genesis creation myth [1] or the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. The list pokes fun at such endeavors in a "light-hearted" manner to make it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!" [2]
However, at the same time the project is a genuine collection of scientists. Despite the list's restriction to only scientists with names like "Steve", which in the United States limits the list to roughly 1 percent of the total population, [3] Project Steve is longer and contains many more eminent scientists than any creationist list. In particular, Project Steve contains many more biologists than the creationist lists, since about 51% of the listed Steves are biologists. [4]
The "Steve-o-meter" webpage provides an updated total of scientist "Steves" that have signed the list.
As of 30 March 2010, the Steve-o-meter registered 1,138 Steves
The point is, as with ANYTHING, you can find people that disagree, but typically that number is very small (I think the last formal suvey found that >99% of scientists polled supported the theory of evolution.)You cannot establish truth by counting how many people 'believe it'.
-
OnTheWayOut
How do you know that Creation is false?
Perry, as long as you can cling to the slightest shred of possibility that everything is false except your universe, you will do so.
You can discredit every last piece of evidence as fabricated if you want to. You can ignore the vast majority of data available.
But you simply put the burden on those that disagree with you to prove it. They don't have to.Live on in your universe if you want to. The burden of proof is on you to find your answers. Endless proof will only result in endless denial on your part. You might one day actually acknowledge some of that proof, but until then it is like talking to a JW about not having "the truth." Their heads are so full of BS that they cannot separate their thoughts from their preconceived notions.
Prove this wrong:
You actually were created in a laboratory of sorts and you look like a six-legged rat. But similar to the movie, THE MATRIX, you are being fed false memories. But you are alone in your matrix. None of us exist, but we are just part of the program. The matrix is imperfect and little clues that you are living a lie seep in from time to time because your brain (well, what you would call a brain) is starting to realize that it's all lies. My post here is one of those little clues. If your creator is your god, then your creator is actually a being that would look like the creature in the movie, ALIEN.
Prove this wrong:
You are actually just in one single dream that your subconscience swears has been your entire life. When you wake up, you will find that you are still an active JW. (If you think dreams are black and white, well.... you are imagining color.)See, we could go on and on. None of that is unproveable, but it is certainly unreasonable to believe such things without proof.