Or was it Designed???
There are libraries of discoveries that flat out contradict materialistic theories of origins
There is literally zero evidence that contradicts evolution as the explanation of the diversity of life.
Soft tissue in fossils does not in any way conflict with millions of years. In fact the best discovery of soft tissue in dino fossils was published just last week.
Perry I have asked you many times to share which books that present the scientific evidence for evolution you have read. Clearly the answer is none.
You reject an incontrovertible scientific fact purely because of its implications. it has nothing to do with evidence.
perry, how are you connected to the commercial 8 posts ago?
Hi waton. I have no connection to the film. It popped up on my twitter account and it looked interesting.
I think that a lot of uninformed people are under the impression that virtually all scientists agree that evolution alone can account for our observations. An "an incontrovertible scientific fact" as Cofty states above. Some fake news has also reported this. But, I don't think the evidence supports this view. From that same website:
Those who have gone out of their way to declare their doubt about Darwin include the:
- 100 Ph.D.s listed at Australia's creation.com
- 200 scientists with master's degrees or Ph.D.s listed over at AiG
- 300 medical doctors at Physicians & Surgeons for Scientific Integrity
- 500 Ph.D. scientists at the Korean Association of Creation Research
- 600 advanced degreed scientist at the Creation Research Society
- 900 scientists who signified their opposition at DissentFromDarwin.org
- 3,000 scientists and professors, nearly, (most of whom hold a Ph.D. in some field of science) who reject secular Darwinism to varying degrees as named online by Dr. Jerry Bergman
* Another Scholar Doubting Darwin: A thousand evolutionists have incorrectly referenced Newsweek magazine to claim that 99.86% of scientists affirm Darwinism. (See RSR's original reporting and debunking of that misinformation, below.)
In contrast to false reporting, consider that the famed atheist professor Thomas Nagel who wrote Mind and Cosmos: why the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false. And in addition to the 5,000 or so scientists, Ph.D.s. and scholars above, those who think that almost all educated people affirm Darwin, are forgetting about these folks, all identified by carefully conducted research conducted by pro-Darwin institutions:
- 30,000 U.S. public high school biology teachers do not endorse Darwinism in class
- 100,000 college professors in the U.S. alone who, according to Harvard researchers, agree that "intelligent design IS a serious scientific alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution."
- 570,000 medical doctors in the U.S., specialists in applied science, say God brought about or directly created humans. Whereas Darwinism is dominated by storytelling, the field of medicine is an actual applied science (see definition and applied science section below) within biology that is practiced by highly educated professionals. Thus it is significant that 60% of all U.S. medical doctors reject the strictly secular Darwinist explanation for our existence, with three of five docs agreeing that either God initiated and guided the process that led to human life or that God specially created human beings as we are.
* Honorable Mention:
- 2.5 Million U.S. scientists and engineers believe in a personal God. This number comes from the 40% who believe in a personal God as reported by the New York Times in 1997 (see below). That percentage had stayed constant over the 80 years since the survey was first carried out in 1917. If that result has stayed consistent again over the past 20 years, then based on our 2016 population of more than 6.2 million scientists and engineers, two and a half million of them believe in God!
- Consider also the RSR list of the many fathers of the physical sciences, both before and after Darwin, who rejected naturalistic origins, including Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Harvey, Boyle, Huygens, Newton, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Dalton, Faraday, Pasteur, Joule, Kelvin, Lister, and Carver.
No sensible scientist would comment on their commitment to "Darwinism". It is a description used by creationists.
Every living thing evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years. This simple fact is beyond all sensible debate.
I wonder how many of those academics you cite are qualified to give an expert opinion on whether evolution by common descent is nonsense/fact.
Why do you creationists always post that nonsense? Is it because you like to troll or are you lot really that ignorant of how science works that you think the above nonsense you have posted is at all relevant?
Consider: What is Darwinism?
Consider: How many academics (of whatever flavour) do NOT agree with your above post and actually accept the conclusions of the experts?
Consider: What do YOU actually know about this subject ('know' in this context refers to having a working knowledge of a subject rather than copy and pasting an article for AIG)?
"There are libraries of discoveries that flat out contradict materialistic theories of origins but are consistent with a Genesis narrative" - Perry
Pulling an idea out of your backside is stretching the definition of "discovery". There are many books that 'prove' that the Earth is flat. Should I be sending my light up globe of Earth back to Amazon and complaining I've been ripped off?
No sensible scientist would comment on their commitment to "Darwinism". This simple fact is beyond all sensible debate.
Cherry-picking logical fallacy, Confirmation bias fallacy, Circular reasoning etc.
No logical fallacy at all. But you go on telling yourself that if it saves you from having to deal with facts.
Please tell me again which books that present the scientific evidence for evolution you have read.
No logical fallacy at all.
Sure it is Cofty. If all of the thousands of scientists who disagree with you aren't sensible, then you don't have to consider their opinion on the matter. How do you know they are not sensible? Because they don't agree with you.
Perry you have a stunning ability to direct posts at others that kind of describe your own methods.
You are from "Circular Reasoning" Central.
You persistently misquote cofty or imply something about what he has said that he clearly did not say.
You then deliver a nice little "Parting shot" as if you have established your point beyond question. It works - but in a superficial kind of way.