100 Top Scientists Who Don't Believe in Evolution

Thanks

I printed this out and used it to roll up some ganja--snake.

BTW I would estimate that there are 1,000,000 life scientists of all forms in this country alone, but I'll be kind and lower this estimate by half. So if all of the 100 who reject evolution are life scientists they represent about 0.02% of the total.

Rap

0 Replies

The lowest form of debate is name calling, but the second lowest form is testimonial. The use of testimonial is pretty much for people who can't defend their viewpoints with a logical argument.

0 Replies

That list includes nobel laureats and department heads at major universities.

The thing is, it's obvously not unanimous, and yet the evolutionites try to insist that it be taught in public schools as if it were. I mean, they're basically trying to perpetrate a fraud on the public at public expense.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

The lowest form of debate is name calling, but the second lowest form is testimonial. The use of testimonial is pretty much for people who can't defend their viewpoints with a logical argument.

I've defended my viewpoints with logical arguments. I can't help it if you're not able to comprehend them....

0 Replies

Quote:

I've defended my viewpoints with logical arguments.

Could you give me some idea where I might find these, "logical arguments"?

I seem to have missed them.

I'd be especially interested in the "logical argument" you used to support your "viewpoint" that the biblical flood was caused by water which originated from Mars...

0 Replies

Adrian wrote:

Quote:
I've defended my viewpoints with logical arguments.

Could you give me some idea where I might find these, "logical arguments"?

I seem to have missed them.

I'd be especially interested in the "logical argument" you used to support your "viewpoint" that the biblical flood was caused by water which originated from Mars...

The thing about Mars and its missing oceans is another sort of topic, and not really related to any question of evolution. Moreover, it's the sort of thing which I'll only bother to try to explain to somebody who actually seems interested in learning something.

0 Replies

Quote:

That list includes nobel laureats and department heads at major universities.

The list includes one Nobel nominee. It does not contain any Nobel laureates. I don't really care, but just for the sake of accuracy.

0 Replies

100 top scientists? top of what?

Statistical significance is the scientific threshold for a theory, not absolute unanimity disputed by 'scientists' signing petitions by a dubious 'scientific' front for a religous think-tank( Discovery institute).

0 Replies

Another "Missing Link" Bites the Dust
http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5504

Were you impressed by National Geographic's Archaeoraptor in their November '99 issue? I think a lot of people were. Did you know it was a fake? Here is an article written in USA Today:

Dinosaur-bird link smashed in fossil flap

By Tim Friend, USA TODAY

The "missing link" dinosaur-bird featured by National Geographic magazine in November is a fake.

Archaeoraptor, the unofficial name of the fossil, is actually two animals pieced together either as an honest mistake made by its discoverers in China or as a breathtaking forgery. The composite, on display at the National Geographic Society in Washington until last week, consists of a birdlike upper torso and the tail and feet of a small raptor. The magazine described it as a "true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs and birds."

The specimen, smuggled into the USA from China, was found at a gem show last year in Tucson by Stephen Czerkas, owner of the Dinosaur Museum in Monticello, Utah. He purchased it for $80,000 and made a deal with National Geographic to study and publicize it and ultimately return it to China.

How National Geographic finds itself at the center of a scientific embarrassment is a tale as layered as the 120-million-year-old sediment from which the fossil reportedly was unearthed.

"Assuming that all the evidence is in and it is a composite, not since I've been editor has anything happened like this," National Geographic editor Bill Allen told USA TODAY. "At any time prior to publication, if we had been informed of any problem at all, we would have yanked (the article)."

The composite nature of the fossil was not detected by the magazine's team of scientists, and a scientific paper that was submitted to both Science and Nature was never published. As a result, Geographic was on its own with no independent review of the fossil.

Allen says he was notified Dec. 20 by a Chinese doctoral student and member of the Geographic team that the fossil was not authentic. The society modified text on the public display to say questions had been raised about the fossil's origins. National Geographic will publish a correction in its March issue.

But Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution's Natural History Museum and an outspoken skeptic of the bird-dinosaur link, says he warned the magazine in November, when the article was published, that there were serious problems with the fossil. He says he was ignored.

"The problem is, at some point the fossil was known by Geographic to be a fake, and that information was not revealed," Olson says.

0 Replies

I mean, there've got to be used car salesmen who aren't dishonest enough to be evolutionary biologists...

0 Replies

The thing is, it's obvously not unanimous, and yet they try to insist that it be taught in public schools as if it were. I mean, they're basically trying to perpetrate a fraud on the public at public expense.

I think you've pretty much made the point against any form of religious instruction in schools/religious displays in public, gangaS. Good work, bucko.

0 Replies

Quote:

That list includes nobel laureats and department heads at major universities.

Thought I'd look for the department heads, see how this name-dropping is going.

Henry F. Schaefer, Nobel Nominee, Director of Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, U. of Georgia.
Fair enough -- not a department head, but a title of some weight.

Ralph W. Seelke, Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences, U. of Wisconsin, Superior
I live in Wisconsin, and I haven't even heard of UW-Superior. Definitely not a major university. I've looked it up - enrollment is 2,300 students.

James G. Harman, Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Texas Tech U.
All right, almost a chair.

Rafe Payne, Prof. & Chair, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Biola U.
"Biola" is Bible Institute Of Los Angeles. I grew up in California, and I knew three people who went to Biola. All were children of an evangelical preacher in my town. There are five individuals on the list associated with BIOLA.

In the meantime, since we're looking at credentials, there are at least five assistant professors on the list and at least 18 associate professors, two of which are in psychology. Almost a quarter of the list -- 24 "top scientists" -- are listed only as Ph.D., meaning they do not currently hold (or at least are not reporting that they hold) positions in their field. There are eight professors emeritus on the list -- not that they should command any less respect, but it does mean that they are not active in research in any field. There are two postdocs on the list. That leaves 43 currently active, tenured professors on this list of 100 academics.

A search for "physics" turns up 11 hits. "Mathematics" turns up 7. Psychology turns up 2. "Philosophy" turns up 3, though one of these is in Philosophy of Science and another is in Philosophy of Biology. Neither of the last two individuals reports holding an academic post, however. "Chemistry" (when not part of "biochemistry") turns up 21 hits.

Conversely, "biology" is in the listed field of 23 individuals,* biochemistry of 9, and zoology of 1. Let's guess I'm missing search terms that would bring another 15 individuals into the fold of basic life sciences (as opposed to medicine) -- that generously puts the number of basic life scientists on the list at 48 -- almost half the list!

*This includes the individual with a PhD (but no position) in Philosophy of Biology.

0 Replies

0 Replies

Used car salesmen?

How about putting on a 'logical fallacy' clinic?

First, using 'appeal to authority' faulty logic with 100top(less) folks from a flat-earth society on a petition , and now good example of an inductive fallacy: one case of forgery was found, therefore evolutionary biology is 'refuted'

Incidentally, Here is the article from the source, and excerpts from it:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_raptor.html

Quote:

The really unfortunate aspect of the Archaeoraptor forgery was that it was used to suggest that other feathered dinosaur fossils were also faked, and added a layer of confusion to public understanding that shouldn't be there," said Clarke.

"There's an abundant amount of evidence that the lineage leading to birds is nested in Dinosauria," she said. "There are many feathered flying and non-flying dinosaur fossils from these two regions that are not forgeries."

Hannity, the source of your post is quite a master at these fallacial arguments, entertaining to some, but of little merit

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
The lowest form of debate is name calling, but the second lowest form is testimonial. The use of testimonial is pretty much for people who can't defend their viewpoints with a logical argument.

I've defended my viewpoints with logical arguments. I can't help it if you're not able to comprehend them....

Where did you answer this one?

Brandon9000 wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
raprap wrote:
In essence Ganja is right--the normal condition for a gene mutation is a birth defect.

Most genetic mutations are not beneficial to survival. As a result of the lack of benefit, natural selection winnows out these detrimental mutations quickly.

However, species evolution occurs only requires a rare mutation that benefits niche survival.

Rap

Read the item above. "Species evolution" is microevolution, which nobody disputes. No combination of mutations and selection can produce a new KIND of animal.

Why do you think that over hundreds of millions of years, and in huge populations, these acumulated changes cannot eventually produce a sufficiently changed animal that one would decide to call if a new species? What is your basis for placing this limit on the process?

It seems to me that you have been doing mostly unsubstantiated name calling. Calling believers in or advocates of evolution bad names doesn't advance your argument, but does make it look like you can't defend it. Now you resort to testimonial to determine a scientific matter, which is a pathetic way to do science.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

It seems to me that you have been doing mostly unsubstantiated name calling.

That's sufficiently unwarranted for me to simply ignore any further postings here with your name on them. See ya...

0 Replies

I don't mean to be rude but this creation v evolution thing is a hoot!

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

It seems to me that you have been doing mostly unsubstantiated name calling.

That's sufficiently unwarranted for me to simply ignore any further postings here with your name on them. See ya...

Please tell me how telling the absolute truth is unwarranted. My allegation was that you engage in name calling. You say it's unwarranted. Well, what is this:

gungasnake wrote:

The theory of evolution is basically dead as we speak. It is no longer being defended by anybody with brains or talent, but rather by academic dead-wood. It has been massively disproven over many decades and they have to keep on reinventing it every five or ten years to keep from looking like total idiots.

and this:

gungasnake wrote:

I regard the entire field of "evolutionary biology" as BS and the perpetrators thereof as quacks and charlatons of the worst sort.

and this:

gungasnake wrote:

I mean, there've got to be used car salesmen who aren't dishonest enough to be evolutionary biologists...

And that's skipping the names you've called me, which never made me excommunicate you. The truth is more likely that you will take any excuse to avoid trying to win in an argument with me.

0 Replies

Oops there are people who really don't believe in evolution.

0 Replies

100 Top Scientists Who Don't Believe in Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know