Scientists Back Dover - [85 scientists request scientists, not Judges, to define "science"]

York Daily Record ^ | 5 Oct 2005 | York Daily Record

[WildTurkey]

Oh, that debunked list again. Wasn't it you that posted it before only to be flooded with posts from some that signed that showed they believed in evolution?

[Alter Kaker]

This includes the origination of life itself; even in the simplest forms. evolutionists now apparently do not even attempt to argue that life can come from non-life.

I am a firm believer in Darwinian evolution, and I also believe that the seed of life was created by the God of Abraham. I don't see a conflict.

This is a major adjustment in their 'theory'.

Is it? Where does Darwin dicuss the process by which the first life came to be? Somehow I missed that part of my indoctrination. As far as I know, all evolution does is point out that allele frequencies change over time, positing common descent and presenting four mechanisms.

Given that evolution has so many holes, gaps, and other failures in evidence;

Such as?

unless you can think of a third.

Sure. Life could have arisen by pure random chance, a series of unlikely events. That would be very different from the theory of evolution or anything else I've seen, but it actually is plausible, however unlikely.

[Alter Kaker]

Most scientists are political.

They didn't used to be. Twenty years ago, most American scientists were Republicans. Five years ago (this is non-scientific, just judging from my colleagues and friends) it was about 50:50. Today it is considerably less than that. It's not that they're getting more liberal, it's that craziness like creationism is scaring them away.

[RunningWolf]

Sure. Life could have arisen by pure random chance, a series of unlikely events. That would be very different from the theory of evolution or anything else I've seen, but it actually is plausible, however unlikely.

How can one truly say that? I say they cannot, that does mean I say you lie however.

Wolf

[Alter Kaker]

How can one truly say that? I say they cannot, that does mean I say you lie however.

Truly say what? The present level of speciation could be accomplished by mutation, gene flow and genetic drift alone, with no natural selection, it's just extremely unlikely.

Now how would you go about removing natural selection from the mix? I'm not quite sure -- that's not my department.

[Alter Kaker]

Actually, I think "extremely" unlikely is probably understating how insanely unlikely it would be. But it could happen. Just like I could conceivably win the lotto each week for the rest of my life.

[RunningWolf]

Good point connectthedots. But for me, the uses of terms like ID fail also.

The logical premises of evolution fail on their own, for if one cannot follow evolution to its origin, its source (that being truth), then how can it be? And truth has to be more than a stastictical assertion to the nth degree

What thing of man, cosmo-evo theories, anything, any concept, theory, etc 'evolve' from nothing? They get as close as they can, then fail are debunked, replaced by new theories.

DOH!!

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

Truly say what?

Well this

Life could have arisen by pure random chance, a series of unlikely events.

Wolf

[Mark Felton]

Your post is nonsense in its entirety.

You have no facts to back up a single point you made.

[Getready]

Does that mean, that if you didn't study or teach at a top university you are no good??? what kind of baloney is that?
Einstein couldn't even get a promotion to 2nd degree
patent inspector...(see recent Scientific American re:
Einsteinian revolution and the current physics changes
since Einstein)..
Anyway, anyone who has gone to a top university cuz lots of
top professors are there, knows that they rarely get a class
with them, just T.A.s, and new Ph.Ds....and with todays
communication speed, it would be very hard to say that
anyone has a monopoly on information,,,and someone at
Tecumseh tech might know more than someone from Haaarvaaard.
Them days are long gone....the only big difference now is
the cost for the experiments,and professors salaries...big U's can afford to do both of them big time...

[RunningWolf]

You have good points there Getready.

Wisdom Genius Brilliance and Knowledge are in the person, not the institution.

'Course those 'in the club' don't want to acknowledge that.
Why? well 'cuz thats the way clubs are.

Wolf

[connectthedots]

As far as I know, all evolution does is point out that allele frequencies change over time, positing common descent and presenting four mechanisms.

How old are you?

[Alter Kaker]

Does that mean, that if you didn't study or teach at a top university you are no good?

No, but there's certainly a correlation, probably a very strong one, and the fact that they can't get a single top scientist suggests what we already know: that their case is weak.

Einstein couldn't even get a promotion to 2nd degree patent inspector

Yes, when he was 23. Subsequently, however, Einstein was never short on credentials -- he got a doctorate from a top university (the University of Zurich), and had professorial stints at a great many institutions including but not limited to Princeton, the University of Zurich, the University of Prague, Leiden University, and the University of Berlin. The whole point of the Amicus brief was as an appeal to authority -- but who is the more persuasive authority? Your typical clerk, your typical professor at a third or fourth rate school, or a Nobel Prize-winning University Professor at a top research institution? One would suspect the latter. And yet the big guns all oppose creationism.

Anyway, anyone who has gone to a top university cuz lots of top professors are there, knows that they rarely get a class with them,

If I ever decide to redo my undergraduate degree, I'll keep that in mind. I'm not sure what your point is in this case, however.

[Alter Kaker]

How old are you?

Older than dirt.

[Alter Kaker]

You have no facts to back up a single point you made.

Facts? I'm not sure how you quantify "facts." I've talked to lots of American scientist colleagues, and I report my observations and present them as such and no more. I'm not the only person to make that observation either.

[Alter Kaker]

Well this Life could have arisen by pure random chance, a series of unlikely events.

Well, that's not what I meant to say. I meant to argue that random chance is a plausible-if-unrealistic competitor to evolution. By life -- and I apologize for writing (thinking?) unclearly here -- I mean speciated life, that which we observe today.

I really don't know very much at all about abiogenesis theories, and would prefer to stay out of that whole can of worms.

[RunningWolf]

Okay

[RunningWolf]

But how can you then use words plausible & unrealistic in the same sentence?

[RunningWolf]

Your typical clerk, your typical professor at a third or fourth rate school, or a Nobel Prize-winning University Professor at a top research institution? One would suspect the latter. And yet the big guns all oppose creationism.

In my opinion, this is poor logic. Many of the worlds great minds did their work in relative obscurity, if fact many of those names are used here.

That is why this approach (based on the performance here maybe not of you, but of others) impresses wolf little, and that approach is of being in the club and slinging a big degree large credential gun.

Like the gal in Top Gun said to Maverick 'it takes more than ...'

Wolf

[connectthedots]

I really don't know very much at all about abiogenesis theories, and would prefer to stay out of that whole can of worms.

The reason you don't want to address abiogenesis is because even the most staunch defender of the ToE understands realizes life cannot come from non-life. That being the case, the origin of various life forms has to be the based on intelligent design. If a 'designer' can create one form of life, that designer could just as easily design and create a multitude of life forms.