B
buffalo
Guest
You have yet to show me the names.
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
There is no need to show names. Educate yourself in biology: read the scientific journals, visit biology departments in universities, attend professional conferences. Then come back and tell us how many evolution-rejecting biologists you find. We’ll add them up, subtract that number from 100,000. and I suspect we will arrive at around .03% as the number of professional biologists who reject the theory of evolution. I don’t know how many of that .03% will be Catholic, but from my acquaintance with Catholic biologists, it will be quite small.
B
buffalo
Guest
I have. For many years. I don’t care much for an argument from popularity. Oh geez buffalo, if you only would visit the biology departments in universities. How convincing. :nope:
I only want to argue the merits. Stop posting this “everyone” accepts evolution nonsense. How many more posts do I need to show you that even the top level evolutionists are having problems.
Notice: Everyone of CAF should stop asking questions because StA says 100,000 atheist biologists say evolution is true. Did you hear this everyone? For the final time - the case is closed.
95% of working biologists are atheists. They cannot and will not allow the Divine foot in the door.
And for those of you that do not know look what Eugenie Scott and Co are up to. The National Center for Science Education is making a play that with your kids in public school. They are trying to coax teachers into giving children Pastor’s and religious quotes from established Churches so they can convince kids that “even the Church accepts evolution therefore you should to”. (sound like indoctrination to anyone?) Now mind you these are atheists. Sound fishy?
Whatever happened to critical thinking?
B
buffalo
Guest
Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock?
…There is no doubt that the common ancestor possessed DNA, RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code, ribosomes (the protein-building factories), ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP.
and this
…
The picture painted by Russell and Martin is striking indeed. The last common ancestor of all life was not a free-living cell at all, but a porous rock riddled with bubbly iron-sulphur membranes that catalysed primordial biochemical reactions. Powered by hydrogen and proton gradients, this natural flow reactor filled up with organic chemicals, giving rise to proto-life that eventually broke out as the first living cells - not once but twice, giving rise to the bacteria and the archaea.
Many details have yet to be filled in, and it may never be possible to prove beyond any doubt that life evolved by this mechanism. The evidence, however, is growing. This scenario matches the known properties of all life on Earth, is energetically plausible - and returns Mitchell’s great theory to its rightful place at the very centre of biology.
…There is no doubt that the common ancestor possessed DNA, RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code, ribosomes (the protein-building factories), ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP.
and this
…
The picture painted by Russell and Martin is striking indeed. The last common ancestor of all life was not a free-living cell at all, but a porous rock riddled with bubbly iron-sulphur membranes that catalysed primordial biochemical reactions. Powered by hydrogen and proton gradients, this natural flow reactor filled up with organic chemicals, giving rise to proto-life that eventually broke out as the first living cells - not once but twice, giving rise to the bacteria and the archaea.
Many details have yet to be filled in, and it may never be possible to prove beyond any doubt that life evolved by this mechanism. The evidence, however, is growing. This scenario matches the known properties of all life on Earth, is energetically plausible - and returns Mitchell’s great theory to its rightful place at the very centre of biology.
T
tjm190
Guest
Given that we seem to be shifting gears back to the merits of evolution, are we at a consensus that evolution is not it’s own ideology/‘atheist propaganda’?
B
buffalo
Guest
What do you think after listening to the annoying Berlinski at 1:52?
T
tjm190
Guest
His book wasn’t distributed as much as he would have liked therefore…?
In any case this game is irrelevant- if you believe evolution is propaganda/an ideology then construct an argument that demonstrates it.
B
buffalo
Guest
Do you remember my balls in the box analogy?
His book sold out in hardcover. It is now available in paperback. Your point? Does the number of sales have anything at all to do with content? He also makes a claim that there is censorship going on.
T
tjm190
Guest
Sadly no, what’s the post number (if it’s in this thread that is)
The number of sales has nothing to do with anything, same with the publisher’s decision not to seek further produce the book or seek greater distribution. Publishers aren’t always interested in creating a second edition- he seems to think that just because his book’s very small original release sold out he had a best seller on his hands, and the only excuse to pass that up would be censorship. But quote honestly- his book succeeded at a small scale. Good for him- but lots of books can do that. The original publisher made a judgement call that this book would not turn a profit if mass produced- and that’s their prerogative.
R
reggieM
Guest
We see them inventing new fantasies like a multiverse, for which there is no evidence, in order to try to get away from the implications of the big bang.
H
hecd2
Guest
What implications would they be?
To be strictly correct the multiverse is a hypothesis to explain fine-tuning (just as inflation is a hypothesis to explain flatness and homogeneity (the horizon problem) not to get away from the implications of the Big Bang.
Is the multiverse hypothesis any thing other than pure speculation? - not, in my view, unless and until some way of testing it can be devised.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Since Catholics believe that the entire universe is the work of God, what you are basically saying is that science is entirely impotent - but we already knew that is what youy believe.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
E
edwest2
Guest
“daily acted upon”? No.
Let’s see what happens if we knock out this gene. OK. Write that down.
Let’s take this apart and look at it. OK. Write that down.
Let’s fill 10,000 tubes with this bad biological substance and inject this other substance to see what happens. Nothing? OK, send in the next trial compound. It worked? OK. Write that down.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Why are you saying I promote such an extremist view? So far, and the daily evidence here and elsewhere bears this out, here is what evolution is.
- A propaganda tool to connect a totally self-starting and self-generating engine that spit out man, to an anti-theist ideology that says we were created by nothing, and are nothing but another animal. Ken Miller, though referred to as Catholic, tends to go along with this idea.
- As presented to Catholics, it is the new circumcision. We must believe it. We must accept it. It is a fact. But when you check the label on Evolution, it clearly states: This product contains no God.
- As the generally useless theory that it is, both for present biology, and for everyday life. Drug discovery does not involve some evolutionary recipe book. It involves good old-fashioned trial and error, the collected knowledge of those trials and errors, and now, some computerized help.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
As someone who works in publishing, the number of books sold has everything to do with everything, especially if you want to stay in business. The decision to produce another edition is based on sales and feedback to the publisher and author.
Small scale? Do you happen to know how many copies of the average book are printed today? Any idea? “lots of books can do that”? Lots of books don’t do that. Do you know how many new books are published every year?
I think a good case can be made for censorship.
Peace,
Ed
H
hecd2
Guest
You own words, mate: “Science can’t analyze the work of God.”
Because quantum theory, relativity and nano-science are not denied on a daily basis by the literal adherents to a creation myth.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
E
edwest2
Guest
My own words? That rule was set up long before I joined this debate. Scientists created that rule, not me.
Peace,
Ed
H
hecd2
Guest
Really? Not that I am aware of. Try telling any scientist who is also a religious believer that “science can’t analyze the work of God” and see what sort of dusty reply you get.hecd2:
My own words? That rule was set up long before I joined this debate. Scientists created that rule, not me.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Buffalo, if you really wanted to argue for Young Earth or Intelligent Design Creationism on its own merits, you wouldn’t make the theory of evolution your whipping boy. But because your theory has no merit in the eyes of working scientists, you stoop to belaboring tirelessly the only working theory in town.
If you think it has merits, make the case to the academy, not only to fellow evolution-haters on an Internet forum. Do the research. Write and publish research articles. Present papers at professional meetings. That’s the way to get your message heard as a biology professional that evolution is a dying and unfruitful theory.
B
buffalo
Guest
As you well know by now I advocate IDvolution.
- Status